[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Message Fastening

Florian Schmaus flo at geekplace.eu
Wed Dec 18 10:59:01 UTC 2019


On 12/11/19 6:10 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
>> On 9 Sep 2019, at 20:37, Florian Schmaus <flo at geekplace.eu> wrote:
>> On 9/5/19 7:52 PM, Jonas Schäfer (XSF Editor) wrote:
>>> The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP.
>>>
>>> Title: Message Fastening
>>> Abstract:
>>> This specification defines a way for payloads on a message to be
>>> marked as being logically fastened to a previous message.
>>>
>>> URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/fasten.html
>>
>> Thank you, Kev for pushing this forward. I think the kind of attention
>> this ProtoXEP already has received, shows that the XMPP ecosystem needs
>> such a XEP and the community desires one.
>>
>> I want to suggest one small change to how the attached-to message is
>> specified: I always assumed that, if xep359 is used to refer a message,
>> the reference would not just be the id-value, but a tuple of id-value
>> and the id-assigning-entity address.
>> This avoids ambiguity if a <apply-to/> attaches to a stanza which
>> multiple <stanza-id/> elements. Furthermore, xep359 makes it very clear
>> that xep359-IDs are just unique and stable within the scope of the
>> id-assigning-entity (this allows implementations to use simple
>> mechanisms to generate the ID without considering collisions with other
>> id-assigning-entities).
> 
> Good point, thanks Flo. Although I’m not sure that 359 does make it clear that it’s not globally unique

The XEP currently states

The value of the 'id' attribute must be unique and stable, i.e. it MUST
NOT change later for some reason within the scope of the 'by' value.
Thus the IDs defined in this extension MUST be unique and stable within
the scope of the generating XMPP entity.

which tries to express this, but the wording can (and should) probably
be improved.

, actually the opposite - I believe it’s a SHOULD on using UUID,

No, it is just a friendly recommendation to simply use UUIDs, not a SHOULD.

> and my understanding has always been that these are intended to be globally unique (I realise you have authority on claims of the original intention) from reading it. This isn’t the only XEP that’s written on the basis of the unique IDs being unique :)

Oh, the IDs are unique. But only if you concatenate the 'by' value with
the ID. Or, in other words, the tuple (xep359-id, xep359-id-by) is
guaranteed by xep359 to be globally unique.

One reason why xep359 makes this distinction is to prevent ID spoofing.
Consider an archive which contains a message with the xep359-id 'id1'
and another user now refers to this message just using 'id1'. If now an
(malicious) entity would be able to add to the archive another message
with the same xep359-id 'id1', but a different xep359-id-by value, then
it is not clear anymore which message is refereed to.

Hence one should always use the tuple (xep359-id, xep359-id-by) when
referring to stanzas using xep359 IDs. And this is the coordinate system
fastening should use to establish a link to other messages.

- Florian


More information about the Standards mailing list