181
edits
Difference between revisions of "XMPP 2.0"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Current situation
(→Proposed change: Better reflection of RFC6121) |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
The [https://xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc6121.html#rules-localpart-barejid routing rules for stanzas addressed to the bare JID as defined in RFC 6120] are blurry and don’t really match modern "always-online but not necessarily in the view of the user" multi-device use cases. This is why [https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0280.html Message Carbons (XEP-0280)] have been invented. They allow a device to tell the server that it wants to receive carbon-copies of all messages received by any resource of an account. This only affects typical chat-related <code><message/></code> stanzas (there are exceptions for certain message types; for presence, there is a well-defined broadcast-to-all-resources mechanism; and IQs can only be addressed to a single resource). | The [https://xmpp.org/rfcs/rfc6121.html#rules-localpart-barejid routing rules for stanzas addressed to the bare JID as defined in RFC 6120] are blurry and don’t really match modern "always-online but not necessarily in the view of the user" multi-device use cases. This is why [https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0280.html Message Carbons (XEP-0280)] have been invented. They allow a device to tell the server that it wants to receive carbon-copies of all messages received by any resource of an account. This only affects typical chat-related <code><message/></code> stanzas (there are exceptions for certain message types; for presence, there is a well-defined broadcast-to-all-resources mechanism; and IQs can only be addressed to a single resource). | ||
However, throughout the history of XMPP, there have been XEPs which use messages to send data which is really only of interest for a single resource. Prime examples are [https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0047.html In-Band Bytestreams (XEP-0047)], privacy enhancing protocols such as the (in)famous OTR and (private messages from) [https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html Multi-User Chat (XEP-0045)]. This led to Message Carbon rules being hand-wavy and blurry, some of the behaviour being implementation-defined, depending on co-operating clients which do not speak Message Carbons themselves and other | However, throughout the history of XMPP, there have been XEPs which use messages to send data which is really only of interest for a single resource. Prime examples are [https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0047.html In-Band Bytestreams (XEP-0047)], privacy enhancing protocols such as the (in)famous OTR and (private messages from) [https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html Multi-User Chat (XEP-0045)]. This led to Message Carbon rules being hand-wavy and blurry, some of the behaviour being implementation-defined, depending on co-operating clients which do not speak Message Carbons themselves and other unfortunate compromises. | ||
=== Proposed change === | === Proposed change === | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
=== Migration path in a hypothetical XMPP 2.0 Session === | === Migration path in a hypothetical XMPP 2.0 Session === | ||
Since routing rules are | Since routing rules are changed, a definition of what happens to stanzas which transition between XMPP 2.0 and XMPP 1.0 nodes is needed. These rules would normally be implemented by servers. Client libraries which support both XMPP 2.0 and XMPP 1.0 could apply those rules when talking to an XMPP 1.0 server. Relevant definitions: | ||
;XMPP 1.0 Routing Modifiers | ;XMPP 1.0 Routing Modifiers | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
Rules for stanzas leaving the XMPP 2.0 realm (to an XMPP 1.0 node): | Rules for stanzas leaving the XMPP 2.0 realm (to an XMPP 1.0 node): | ||
* If a message is addressed to a ''full JID'', an XMPP 1.0 Routing Modifier to prevent carbon copying MUST be injected. | * If a message is addressed to a ''full JID'', an XMPP 1.0 Routing Modifier to prevent carbon copying and a <code><no-archive/></code> ''transient'' tag MUST be injected. | ||
* The stanza MUST be marked with a to-be-defined <code><xmpp-2/></code> tag so that XMPP 2.0 nodes further downstream can recognize that the XMPP 2.0 routing semantics shall apply. | * The stanza MUST be marked with a to-be-defined <code><xmpp-2/></code> tag so that XMPP 2.0 nodes further downstream can recognize that the XMPP 2.0 routing semantics shall apply. | ||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
* A stanza with a <code><xmpp-2/></code> tag MUST be processed as if it came from an XMPP 2.0 node. Any XMPP 1.0 Routing Modifiers MUST be stripped. | * A stanza with a <code><xmpp-2/></code> tag MUST be processed as if it came from an XMPP 2.0 node. Any XMPP 1.0 Routing Modifiers MUST be stripped. | ||
* A message to a ''bare JID'' must be delivered to all online clients (this is allowed by RFC 6120 already). | * A message to a ''bare JID'' must be delivered to all online clients (this is allowed by RFC 6120 already). | ||
* A message to a ''full JID'' with <code><private/></code> or <code><no-copy/></code> is delivered to the targeted full JID (this matches current Carbons behavior). | * A message to a ''full JID'' with <code><private/></code> or <code><no-copy/></code> is delivered only to the targeted full JID (this matches current Carbons behavior). | ||
* For a message to a ''full JID'' with no XMPP 1.0 Routing Modifier, a set of rules similar to Carbon copying needs to be applied, to determine if the message must be rerouted to the bare JID: | * For a message to a ''full JID'' with no XMPP 1.0 Routing Modifier, a set of rules similar to Carbon copying needs to be applied, to determine if the message must be rerouted to the bare JID: | ||
** type=normal - needs to detect body presence / special use cases | ** type=normal - needs to detect body presence / special use cases | ||