Version 0.6.0 of XEP-0333 (Displayed Markers (was: Chat Markers)) has
been released.
Abstract:
This specification introduces a method to let the sender, or multiple
participants in a group chat, know that a client has displayed
messages up to a certain point.
Changelog:
* Add Business Rule about opportunistic Displayed Markers in 1:1 chats
(dg)
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0333.html
Note: The information in the XEP list at https://xmpp.org/extensions/
is updated by a separate automated process and may be stale at the
time this email is sent. The XEP documents linked herein are up-to-
date.
This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on
XEP-0388.
Title: Extensible SASL Profile
Abstract:
This document describes a replacement for the SASL profile documented
in RFC 6120 which allows for greater extensibility.
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0388.html
This Last Call begins today and shall end at the close of business on
2024-04-01.
Please consider the following questions during this Last Call and send
your feedback to the standards(a)xmpp.org discussion list:
1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol
stack or to clarify an existing protocol?
2. Does the specification solve the problem stated in the introduction
and requirements?
3. Do you plan to implement this specification in your code? If not,
why not?
4. Do you have any security concerns related to this specification?
5. Is the specification accurate and clearly written?
Your feedback is appreciated!
This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on
XEP-0386.
Title: Bind 2
Abstract:
This specification provides a single-request replacement for several
activities an XMPP client needs to do at startup.
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0386.html
This Last Call begins today and shall end at the close of business on
2024-04-01.
Please consider the following questions during this Last Call and send
your feedback to the standards(a)xmpp.org discussion list:
1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol
stack or to clarify an existing protocol?
2. Does the specification solve the problem stated in the introduction
and requirements?
3. Do you plan to implement this specification in your code? If not,
why not?
4. Do you have any security concerns related to this specification?
5. Is the specification accurate and clearly written?
Your feedback is appreciated!
I have setup the membership application Wiki page for the application
period Q2 2024
Applications are encouraged from developers and others who are actively
involved in the Jabber/XMPP community. To apply, create a page about
yourself on the Wiki:
https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Membership_Applications_Q2_2024
If you don't have a wiki account, send your full name, preferred
nickname and email address to me or one of the other Sysops:
https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Sysops
Apply now!!!
Thanks,
Alex
Version 0.2.1 of XEP-0428 (Fallback Indication) has been released.
Abstract:
This specification proposes a mechanism by which message bodies or
parts thereof can be marked as being for fallback purposes, and
therefore to be ignored by anything that understands the original
intent of the message.
Changelog:
Change integer type of region start and end attributes in schema to
xs:unsignedInt. (lnj)
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0428.html
Note: The information in the XEP list at https://xmpp.org/extensions/
is updated by a separate automated process and may be stale at the
time this email is sent. The XEP documents linked herein are up-to-
date.
Hi Matthew,
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 1:53 PM Matthew Wild <mwild1(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 8 February 2017 at 23:47, Christian Schudt <christian.schudt(a)gmx.de> wrote:
> >
> >> 1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol stack or to clarify an existing protocol?
> >
> > Partly.
> > XEP-0079: Advanced Message Processing already solves the same problem.
> >
> > drop forward => no-copy
> > drop stored => no-store
> >
>
> Maybe the document should go into more detail regarding differences
> with AMP. Some notes:
>
> - You can implement both specifications if desired
> - Over 10 years after publication, XEP-0079 is not widely
> implemented, I believe this is largely due to its complexity
> - XEP-0079 requires multiple discovery steps before you can actually
> send a message
> - XEP-0079 is relatively difficult to re-use in other XEPs
> - Lots of edge cases, e.g. interaction with MUC rooms. With hints the
> server is still free to choose the most sensible option given the info
> it has.
Council has Issued another Last Call on 0334¹ and I've been going over
the feedback from the last Last Call.
The Editor will start the Last Call next Monday.
I think it received mostly positive feedback back then and I have no
reason to believe it won’t pass Last Call this time.
However I think you were right that the document should go into more
detail regarding differences with AMP.
Furthermore a little down the thread Dave had feedback wrt hints in
Error messages:
"I noted that messages of type error are explicitly called out in §4.4,
however I think there needs to be a general rule that hints SHOULD be
ignored in messages of type='error'. Possibly MUST. Errors are
sometimes generated by bouncing the entire stanza, including original
contents, back to the sender, and these original contents might
include a hint; it seems sensible to always ignore these."
that also sounds like a sensible addition to me.
Maybe you have the time to make those changes before Last Call even
starts (next Monday)
Thank You
cheers
Daniel
¹: On February 8th 2023
Good morning Council Members,
the next XMPP Council Meeting will take place on, Tuesday, March 19
2024 at 16:00 UTC in xmpp:council@muc.xmpp.org?join
The Agenda is as follows:
1) Roll call
2) Agenda Bashing
3) Editors update
* LAST CALL: XEP-0388 (Extensible SASL Profile)
* LAST CALL: XEP-0386 (Bind 2)
4) Items for voting
a) Issue Last Call on XEP-0333: Displayed Markers (was: Chat Markers)
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0333.html
5) Pending votes
* Dan on Proposed XMPP Extension: Message Displayed Synchronization
See the spreadsheet of Doom:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1H310M8z6Kdo6XyNf2DwafzrSLuwhaLNvzfa…
6) Date of Next
7) AOB
8) Close
Hey list,
I am attaching the update on the issues discussed in the thread.
kind regards,
Abdurrahman
Jonas Schäfer <jonas(a)wielicki.name>, 15 Kas 2023 Çar, 19:25 tarihinde şunu
yazdı:
> Hi list, hi Abdurrahman,
>
> On Montag, 30. Oktober 2023 17:15:52 CET kevin.smith(a)isode.com wrote:
> > The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP.
> >
> > Title: Communicate & Ask to AI
> > Abstract:
> > This document defines a protocol for asking questions to an artificial
> > intelligence or requesting it to make predictions.
> >
> > URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/xep-ai.html
>
> Thank you for your submission, Abdurrahman.
>
> We discussed this in the Council and I want to share a few suggestions for
> improvement with you.
>
> The mandatory <ai> element, as Nicolas already pointed out, seems like an
> odd
> requirement: there are already LLM-based entities out there which would
> immediately be non-compliant. In adddition, the model selection is
> underspecified: How would I know which models are even available at that
> particular agent?
>
> I think it would be better to:
> - Specify a new XEP-0030 identity based on the already existing
> bot-identity
> which identifies an account as a bot.
>
> This builds on already existing mechanisms, which is always good.
>
> - Define a XEP-0030 feature or XEP-0128 service discovery extension which
> describes the model used by the "AI" account
>
> This allows clients/users to discover information about the specific
> type
> of model used, which is useful.
>
> - Then use separate accounts for different models.
>
> This is probably debatable; if there is a compelling usecase for
> hosting
> multiple models on the same account, the model selection could be made
> part of
> the XEP-0004 form you already suggest in the document. The available
> models
> could be made part of a XEP-0128 extension, so that clients can basically
> just
> copy the form over and select a model.
>
> Other than that, I think this is an acceptable submission. The idea of
> passing
> along parameters using an embedded form to the model is novel and a good
> one
> in my opinion.
>
> kind regards,
> Jonas_______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list -- standards(a)xmpp.org
> Info: Unsubscribe: %(real_name)s-unsubscribe@%(host_name)s
> _______________________________________________
>
Version 1.1.1 of XEP-0313 (Message Archive Management) has been
released.
Abstract:
This document defines a protocol to query and control an archive of
messages stored on a server.
Changelog:
Add XEP-0136 to superseded specifications (gdk)
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0313.html
Note: The information in the XEP list at https://xmpp.org/extensions/
is updated by a separate automated process and may be stale at the
time this email is sent. The XEP documents linked herein are up-to-
date.
Dear community,
it's been a while I spoke up here.
I would like to discuss the removal of the following part-sentence from
XEP-0030 (in Final status!):
> every entity MUST support at least the
> 'http://jabber.org/protocol/disco#info' feature
Announcing that feature is redundant: An entity which replies with a properly
constructed `<query xmlns="http://jabber.org/protocol/disco#info"/>` element
is bound to (and has always been bound to) have implemented XEP-0030 to the
best of its knowledge.
As this is a Final(!) status XEP, here is my estimate of the impact this
change has:
- Implementations which required the presence of this feature on the
receiving side would now become non-compliant: They might assume
that the remote entity did not really support XEP-0030 and fail with
an error.
Such implementations would need to be adapted in order to be able to
interoperate with implementations which follow a revised version of
XEP-0030.
I don't see any other impact. I also strongly suspect that the set of
implementations which follow XEP-0030 to the letter is rather slim (I only
know of a single one, which would be the Rust XMPP library xmpp-rs [1]).
The reason why this came up: There have in the past been cases ([2] and
another, not-yet-filed issue against Prosody IM where the disco#info feature
is missing from MUCs) where implementations didn't emit this feature. The
seeming pointlessness and lack of information conveyed by this feature var
make it easy to overlook and low-priority to fix. The fact that this has gone
undiscovered for at least one Prosody IM release cycle further supports the
assumption that the number of implementations which rely on that part of the
spec is rather small.
Your input is welcome.
kind regards,
Jonas Schäfer
(these days without "special" role in the standards process)
[1]: And there exists at least one fork which removed that check:
https://gitlab.com/nesium/xmpp-rs/-/commit/1ddb050
[2]: https://issues.prosody.im/1664
