[Standards] Call for Experience: XEP-0066: Out of Band Data

Daniel Gultsch daniel at gultsch.de
Tue Mar 10 18:15:02 UTC 2020

Am Di., 25. Feb. 2020 um 15:54 Uhr schrieb Jonas Schäfer <jonas at wielicki.name>:
> The XEP Editor would like to Call for Experience with XEP-0066 before
> presenting it to the Council for advancing it to Final status.
> During the Call for Experience, please answer the following questions:
> 1. What software has XEP-0066 implemented? Please note that the
> protocol must be implemented in at least two separate codebases (at
> least one of which must be free or open-source software) in order to
> advance from Draft to Final.

I have implemented read and write support for x:oob in Conversations.
The implementation is independent of other implementations.

I do have read support for incoming iq:oob but I don’t think anyone
has ever used it.

> 2. Have developers experienced any problems with the protocol as
> defined in XEP-0066? If so, please describe the problems and, if
> possible, suggested solutions.

Kinda. See below.

> 3. Is the text of XEP-0066 clear and unambiguous? Are more examples
> needed? Is the conformance language (MAY/SHOULD/MUST) appropriate?
> Have developers found the text confusing at all? Please describe any
> suggestions you have for improving the text.

I find the jabber:x:oob section a bit ambiguous. While the section
jabber:iq:oob clearly talks about file transfer, the x:oob section
talks about URIs in general. While some implementations in the wild
use that along side HTTP File Upload to communicate that a certain URL
was actually meant as a file transfer (to distinguish them from
regular, copy pasted, URLs) some clients just to regex on the input
field and if the message loosely resembles a URI they will send an
x:oob element.

These two interpretations are clearly at odds with each other because
clients that expect x:oob to mean file transfer will trip over clients
that use them for any kind of URL.

While the language in x:oob allows them to do that I honestly don’t
see the point in proving to the other side that you can do regular
expressions on the user input.


More information about the Standards mailing list