[Standards] Problems with IM Message Routing: Message Types
georg at op-co.de
Fri Nov 10 19:57:55 UTC 2017
Hello, this is part 3 of the thread about how broken XMPP is
today we are going to cover Message Types.
There are five different well-defined message types that influence how a
message is stored and forwarded by servers and how it is displayed on
clinets. However, message types are not applied correctly in practice,
the rules in RFC6121, Carbons and MAM are inconsistent and leave big
"implementation defined behavior" gaps, leading to a surprisingly large
number of possible issues behind a simple "why didn't my message arrive"
The message type attribute is defined in RFC 6121
<https://xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc6121.html#message-syntax-type>, and it has the
following well-defined values and sematics:
- „chat“ = typical IM
- „error“ = things gone wrong
- „groupchat“ = essentially reserved for XEP-0045
- „headline“ = annoying pop-up
- „normal“ = kind of like email
The server-side routing rules vary for different incoming message types,
depend on whether 'to' is a full or bare JID, on the number of online
clients on that account and their presence priority value, and on
Some examples of the rules, when applied correctly:
- "chat" messages to an offline full JID MUST be re-routed to a
different "available" client of the user.
- if multiple clients are connected, a bare-JID "normal" or "chat"
message might be delivered to none, one or any subset of those
clients, as deemed awesome by the server authors(*).
(*) the Carbons rules somewhat improve on that front by always
delivering all qualifying messages to all Carbons-enabled clients, but
it is again implementation-defined what exactly qualifies a message for
Problems related to message types
There is no dedicated message type for system messages like MAM and
Carbons, and it is not practically possible to add one - so we use
"normal" by default.
Some XEPs that define message payloads do not care to specify the
message type to be used. As an example, "XEP-0184: Message Delivery
Receipts" defines the types of messages that can contain a
receipt request, but does not say what message type the receipt response
message should have. The example provided implies type=normal, whereas
some client developers implement type=chat or reflect the type that
was set in the original receipt-requesting message.
Some clients send IM content to full JIDs with type=normal.
Because of this, some servers (ejabberd) apply type=chat full-JID
rerouting rules to type=normal messages as well, which will sooner or
later affect MAM responses from external archives.
Some clients display type=headline messages as a focus-stealing popup
Some clients don't display certain message types at all (e.g. Gajim
currently has a bug that prevents "normal" messages from being shown, and
nobody noticed it).
Rules for Carbons and MAM lead to an incomplete picture on some clients,
like lack of ACKs or error-bounces on messages in the history.
As it is now, the message type encodes multiple somewhat orthogonal
properties of a message:
- semantics (what is it supposed to mean and how is it supposed to be
shown at the receiving entity)
- routing (where should a server send it)
- persistence (will it go into an archive or not?)
We have tried to address routing and persistence with Carbons and MAM,
respectively. However, we were making assumptions about those properties
based on the message type and existence of certain payloads, leading to
I think that routing and persistence belong together (a persistent
message SHOULD be delivered to all clients, eventually) in the general
case, but there are probably exceptions like CSN, which might not need
to be persisted.
We could separate routing+persitence from the message type as far as
possible, e.g. by explicitly using the resource identifier:
- bare-JID = all-clients + archive
- full-JID = single client, no carbons, no archive, no redirection
This would bring us closer to the initial RFC6121 rules, but wouldn't be
quite compatible with them or with Carbons/MAM, so it would require
something like a new session type to work correctly (see also
We could use message hints to explicitly mark exception from this, e.g.
<no-archive/> for transient (CSN) messages to be routed to all clients.
Feedback please :)
|| http://op-co.de ++ GCS d--(++) s: a C+++ UL+++ !P L+++ !E W+++ N ++
|| gpg: 0x962FD2DE || o? K- w---() O M V? PS+ PE-- Y++ PGP+ t+ 5 R+ ||
|| Ge0rG: euIRCnet || X(+++) tv+ b+(++) DI+++ D- G e++++ h- r++ y? ||
++ IRCnet OFTC OPN ||_________________________________________________||
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Standards