Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Core
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: IETF-Announce <email@example.com> Cc: Internet Architecture Board <firstname.lastname@example.org>, RFC Editor <email@example.com>, xmpp mailing list <firstname.lastname@example.org>, xmpp chair <email@example.com> Subject: Protocol Action: 'Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Core' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-xmpp-3920bis-22.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Core' (draft-ietf-xmpp-3920bis-22.txt) as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Gonzalo Camarillo and Robert Sparks. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-xmpp-3920bis/
Technical Summary Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. The Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) is an application profile of the Extensible Markup Language (XML) that enables the near-real-time exchange of structured yet extensible data between any two or more network entities. This document defines XMPP's core protocol methods: setup and teardown of XML streams, channel encryption, authentication, error handling, and communication primitives for messaging, network availability ("presence"), and request- response interactions. Since 2004 the Internet community has gained extensive implementation and deployment experience with XMPP, including formal interoperability testing carried out under the auspices of the XMPP Standards Foundation (XSF). This document incorporates comprehensive feedback from software developers and service providers, including a number of backward-compatible modifications. As a result, this document reflects the rough consensus of the Internet community regarding the core features of XMPP 1.0, thus obsoleting RFC 3920. Working Group Summary Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There is strong consensus in the working group to publish this document. There has been controversy over the use of dialback authentication in XMPP. RFC 3920 recommended against the use of dialback, but included it for backwards compatibility reasons. Since dialback continues to be in common use among XMPP implementations, some working group participants wished to keep it in this draft. Others believed that we should further discourage its use by removing it. The working group reached a rough consensus to remove it from this draft, but mention it (referencing XEP-0220) as something many implementations do, and allowed at a MAY level for interworking with implementations that are unable to use stronger authentication. There were concerns that the XMPP addressing format (aka JID) depend on internationalization technologies (stringprep) that are currently in flux, and may be in flux for some time. Rather than block progress on this draft, the working group chose to remove the JID definition to a separate draft (draft- ietf-xmpp-address-03). The referenced draft continues to use stringprep, but was separated out to make it easier to update in a "modular" fashion once work on a new internationalization approach is complete. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type Review, on what date was the request posted? There are at least 25 server implementations, 50 library implementations, and 100 client implementations of the XMPP RFCs; a partial list is located at <http://xmpp.org/xmpp-software/> (that list does not include "software as a service" implementations hosted by service providers such as Google Talk). Several downloadable software implementations in each category have been closely tracking the changes between RFC 3920 and draft-ietf-xmpp-3920bis, and many others are currently being upgraded or are waiting until the replacement RFC is published before including the modifications in released software. Interoperability is continually being verified among implementation teams, over the XMPP network, and at more formal interoperability testing events sponsored by the XMPP Standards Foundation. It is expected that official implementation reports will be submitted within a year after publication of the revised XMPP RFCs. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the Responsible Area Director? If the document requires IANA experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries in this document are <to be="" added="" by="" the="" ad="">.' The document shepherd for this document is Ben Campbell. The responsible Area Director is Gonzalo Camarillo.