[Standards] DEFERRED: XEP-0357 (Push Notifications)
thilo at eightysoft.de
Thu Nov 1 23:37:12 UTC 2018
As I said already in another thread:
This XEP needs at least a note discouraging the use of the fields "message-
sender" and "message-body" because of privacy implications.
In the wild the field "message-body" is left empty for low priority pushes (in
short: pushes not related to message stanzas containing a body) and set to
something like "New Message!" for high priority pushes.
This is at least needed for iOS apps not having VoIP permissions.
The field "message-count" is ambiguous and should be removed completely or
defined what is counted by it.
The prosody implementation hardcodes its value to "1".
The field "pending-subscription-count" is not used by prosody at all.
I don't know if other implementations use it.
The business rules proposed by Daniel should be incorporated into the XEP as
Prosody's implementation rationale for these are explained here: https://
AND https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2018-October/035396.html :
> Appserver might take notice that app didn't wake up after three
> content-update notification and send an alert notification on fourth
> attempt. We don't do that, however.
Well, that wouldn't make for good UX at all. Push notifications are sent for
non-body messages, too. Having an alert notification without some visible
change when you open the app (because only "silent" xmpp stanzas triggered
push) is bad.
And imho chatting is about real-time communication. Missing (maybe important)
messages for several minutes or maybe for hours just because fewer than 3
pushes were sent out is bad, too (some account with only a few contacts,
something often seen with xmpp newcomers).
I agree that the only viable solution is to implement some VoIP capability
short of apple changing their policy, BUT:
Having a priority for messages helps where that is not feasible (or something
that will be implemented later after other XMPP functions have been
implemented). And there could come other push services for which this priority
thing will be needed, too.
The thing is: Having the capability for priorizing messages when needed in the
XEP will reflect what ChatSecure and possibly others need and are already
Not standardizing this despite of demand in this will ensure every app needing
this will do some homegrown not interoperable implementation/patch.
Chatseucre demanded its users to patch prosody to support a priority field.
AND: not standardizing this will just not reflect reality. Prosody AND ejabberd
both allow the last-message field to be used for priority signaling.
Standardizing a new field for this and removing the new-message field altogether
would be better, privacy wise and standards wise.
Am Montag, 22. Oktober 2018, 14:26:17 CET schrieb Ненахов Андрей:
> > I think that in the long term, we need to empower the server to do just
> > that. You propose that the client (or user?) should make the decision
> > what is important, by sending every push to the client. However, this is
> > bad for battery usage (you don't want your device to wake up on every
> > MUC presence change).
> I don't propose that the client should make the decision what is
> important. Quite the opposite - server does. And *if* the server
> decides, that some event is important enough, it sends push and client
> wakes up. No need for additional levels of logic with different levels
> of push notifications importance, that indeed does put significant
> overheads on both clients and servers.
> > What's still not solved is how to interface that with E2EE (an encrypted
> > MUC message might or might not contain your name, demaning a push).
> Ah, this is simple. MUC message simply won't reach your server because
> your client is not connected to it. Unless, of course, you use some
> crutches to patch this unfortunate broken by
> design IRC clone.
> > In the short term, we should codify the rough set of guidelines in the
> > XEP, as suggested by Thilo and Daniel, and have high-priority and
> > background pushes.
> If by 'high priority' pushes you mean use alert-type push
> notifications in iOS, I'm opposing the idea of using them in at all.
> It's either bad UX or privacy breach, both are bad.
> Ненахов Андрей
> Директор ООО "Редсолюшн" (Челябинск)
> (351) 750-50-04
> Standards mailing list
> Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: Standards-unsubscribe at xmpp.org
More information about the Standards