[Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0357 (Push Notifications)

Thilo Molitor thilo at eightysoft.de
Thu Nov 1 23:38:46 UTC 2018


Sorry for my last message! I replied to the wrong thread...
So here is the correct reply :)

As I said already in another thread:

https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2018-October/035387.html :

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 
well: https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2016-February/030925.html

Prosody's implementation rationale for these are explained here: https://
hg.prosody.im/prosody-modules/file/tip/mod_cloud_notify/business_rules.markdown


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 
doing.
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.


Cheers,
Thilo



Am Samstag, 20. Oktober 2018, 11:51:54 CET schrieb Jonas Schäfer:
> This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on
> XEP-0357.
> 
> Title: Push Notifications
> Abstract:
> This specification defines a way for an XMPP servers to deliver
> information for use in push notifications to mobile and other devices.
> 
> URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0357.html
> 
> This Last Call begins today and shall end at the close of business on
> 2018-11-03.
> 
> Please consider the following questions during this Last Call and send
> your feedback to the standards at 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!
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: Standards-unsubscribe at xmpp.org
> _______________________________________________


More information about the Standards mailing list