Good Morning Council Members,
the next XMPP Council Meeting will take place on, Tuesday, September
30 2025 at 15:30 UTC in xmpp:council@muc.xmpp.org?join
The Agenda is as follows:
1) Roll call
2) Agenda Bashing
3) Editors update
· UPDATED: XEP-0317 (Hats)
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0317.html
· Proposed XMPP Extension: Pubsub Node Bookmark
https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/pubsub-node-bookmark.html
4) Items for voting
a) Proposed XMPP Extension: Pubsub Node Bookmark
https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/pubsub-node-bookmark.html
b) XEP-0045: Fix 'roomsecret' field inconsistency
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1464
5) Pending votes
Dan on:
XEP-0060 / XEP-0248: Improve separation of 'collections'
XEP-0060 & XEP-0248: Default node-type specific configuration
XEP-0070: extend security section
Issue Last Call on 'XEP-0440: SASL Channel-Binding Type Capability'
Daniel and Marvin on:
XEP-0060 / XEP-0248: Improve separation of 'collections'
XEP-0060 & XEP-0248: Default node-type specific configuration
See the spreadsheet of doom:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oAHUqBdlkobDcmfQ-YRMfZHGQLMWEdOFuEU…
6) Date of Next
7) AOB
8) Close
Hi all,
The 'roomconfig_roomsecret' data form field definition is not consistent.
In XEP-0045, examples 157 and 165 use 'text-private'. The registry
submission in paragraph 16.5.3 uses 'text-single'.
The registry itself (https://xmpp.org/registrar/formtypes.html) uses
'text-private'.
To me, this seems to boil down to a mistake in paragraph 16.5.3, which
should be corrected to 'text-private'. Given that the XEP is Stable, can we
bluntly do that?
Kind regards,
Guus
The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP.
Title: Pubsub Node Bookmark
Abstract:
This specification defines a bookmark element pointing to a Pubsub
node
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/pubsub-node-bookmark.html
The Council will decide in the next two weeks whether to accept this
proposal as an official XEP.
Version 0.3.1 of XEP-0317 (Hats) has been released.
Abstract:
This specification defines a more extensible model for roles and
affiliations in Multi-User Chat rooms.
Changelog:
Typos, completed some examples and paragraph clarifications thanks to
badlop feedback. (tj)
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0317.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 all and llarma (XEP-0449 author) in particular,
It's not clear in the spec whether it is allowed to have a <sticker>
element without "pack" attribute. I know that the XEP is mostly about
specifying how packs work; but I am looking for a way to convey the
information that an attachment is a sticker. My use-case is between
slidge and movim (for now, but maybe other client devs are interested…),
and not in a "pack" context. We could use a non-standard element, but if
you intended to make packless XEP-0449 stickers legal, let's use your XEP!
Basically, we would just add an empty
<stickerxmlns='urn:xmpp:stickers:0' />to an attachment (specified via
oob and/or SIMS and/or SFS -_-). Did you intend to make this legal or
should we use something else?
Thanks for your reply,
-- nicoco
Hi,
I'm submitting a new XEP named Pubsub Node Bookmark after the work we
did with nicoco on the XEP-0503: Spaces.
This XEP is quite simple and defines a new <pubsub-node/> element that
act as a bookmark that point to a Pubsub Node.
The goal is to have something very similar to the <conference/> node
defined in XEP-0402: PEP Native Bookmarks, a <pubsub-node/> is even
having an <extensions/> item that is compatible with the ones of
XEP-402, allowing Pubsub Node Bookmarks to be pinned
(https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0402.html) or having custom
notifications settings (https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0492.html).
As you see in the example bellow the id is defined the same way as the
ids in XEP-0402 but this time by using a Pubsub URI.
Here is an example:
<itemid='bookmarks.library.org?;node=books'><pubsub-nodexmlns="urn:xmpp:pubsub-node_bookmark:0"jid="bookmarks.library.org"node="movies"><extensions><pinnedxmlns='urn:xmpp:bookmarks-pinning:0'/></extensions></pubsub-node></item>
Why this XEP ?
A Space is defined as a list of items in a Pubsub Node, those items can
be MUCs but also Pubsub Nodes (for example if you want to have a Blog or
Newsletter in your Space).
Movim is using something a bit similar in an old XEP I defined in 2013:
https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0330.html, if Pubsub Node Bookmark is
published, I'll update XEP-0330 to be based on that one.
You can find a HTML version there:
https://movim.eu/xeps/pubsub-node-bookmark.html
I'd be happy to get feedbacks to see how things can be improved :)
Regards,
edhelas
Hi all,
I just submitted a revision to XEP-0503: Spaces. This is something
edhelas and I have been working on last week. I intend to implement it
in slidge, and he intends to implement UI for it in movim.
It is an almost complete rewrite vs the current state, which should not
be an issue since it has not been implemented anywhere yet. I tried to
incorporate the feedback I got, not only from the mailing but in various
MUCs and private conversations I had about the XEP here and there. In
short, a space is now just a pubsub node with appropriate configuration
and payload, and a space service is a pubsub service with feature
requirements.
As per the previous revision, the goal of this XEP is to establish a
minimal viable protocol for clients and servers to build around the
general concept of grouping several entities together. It requires
little to no additional support server-side and should work, in a very
basic form, with what's already available out there. I believe, that,
even in this basic form, it would be nice to have.
edhelas and I will also submit soon(ish) another XEP which could be _a_
way of defining how space-wide affiilations/roles/hats could work, by
using a "space's main MUC". That would allow for both optimising
presence traffic and enforcing consistency between the various rooms of
a space. This, of course, would require some additional server and
client support, but it looks like we can do something that is relatively
usable on any MUC-supporting client. I think it is best to have this in
a separate XEP, for future-proofness, since GC3 is just around the
corner. ;o)
Let me know what you think.
-- nicoco
Version 0.2.0 of XEP-0503 (Server-side spaces) has been released.
Abstract:
This document defines an XMPP protocol to cluster several groupchat
rooms together.
Changelog:
Rewrite using pubsub semantics. (nc)
URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0503.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.
Hello,
I'm forwarding this old message, as it has never been answered, and the author
(namely Dwd) is more active these days.
PAM is very useful in Pubsub toolbox, and I would like to see this
specification in a better state :).
Thanks!
Goffi
---------- Message transmis ----------
Objet : [Standards] XEP-0376 (Pubsub Account Management): some feedbacks
Date : vendredi 15 avril 2022, 10:41:49 heure d’été d’Europe centrale
De : Goffi <goffi(a)goffi.org>
À : standards(a)xmpp.org
Hi,
I'm currently implementing XEP-0376 both client and service side, and here are
my feedbacks.
# Form:
- a small typo in example 1, it's "xmlns" ("s" is missing)
- § 3.3 Unsubscribing: even if it's obvious, an explicit example would be
welcome for unsubscribe too
- there are a lot of questions on this XEP, I'm not sure if it's the best
location for that, IMHO discussing this on standard@ would be more
appropriate.
- § 5 XMPP Registrar Considerations: even if it made me smile a bit, I don't
think that XEP (beside humourous ones) is a location for this kind of jokes.
It's not a big deal for experimental XEPs though.
# Substance:
* § 3.5 auto-subscriptions and § 3.6 Filtering
I don't really understand the sentence "this implies that servers would
gradually acrue any node type which the user has had a capable client at any
time.". Could you formulate it more clearly or at least explain it?
Regarding auto-subscription, XEP-0060 is not great itself about it as it's
mentioning "root collections" and "subsciption_depth" which are notions of
XEP-0248 (and I don't think that there are many complete implementations of
it, if any). But that's a topic which should be discussed on a different
thread.
That put aside, I'm not sure that XEP-0376 should take care at all of auto-
subscription regarding that we have already the filtering with +notify.
This is done on a per-client basis, and if client wants to get says OMEMO
public keys or user mood because it supports those features, I don't see the
need to keep track of it at the server level.
Sure it's broadcast. To my experience this is not a problem: I use +notify to
auto-subscribe when I want update from all users to which I'm presence
subscribed, and if I want only events for a specific user/node, I use an
explicit subscription (in which case PAM is useful).
Thus I would remove entirely § 3.5 and § 3.6, or replace them by a text
indicating that PAM service ignores them and they work as usual with XEP-0060/
XEP-0163 auto-subscription and filtering.
This would make the whole thing simpler, but please explain me with a clear
use-case if I'm missing something.
* § 3.7 interaction with MAM
I guess events should be archived normally by MAM (at least to be sure that
all clients receive them correctly), and I really don't see the need to filter
them out (that's only events about explicit (un)subscription to nodes, the
traffic should not be high).
[this par below is forwarded from a follow-up email]
> * § 3.7 interaction with MAM
>
> I guess events should be archived normally by MAM (at least to be sure that
all clients receive them correctly), and I really don't see the need to filter
them out (that's only events about explicit (un)subscription to nodes, the
traffic should not be high).
Second thought: are you talking about the (un)subscribe notification as
explained at § 3.2, or XEP-0060 items events? In the later case yes, filtering
is probably desirable: if my client doesn't handle blogging, it probably
doesn't want all the XEP-0277 items notifications.
That's it for now. It's a useful addition to pubsub in XMPP, and I hope to see
more implementation in close future.
Cheers
Goffi
