From stpeter@stpeter.im Mon Jun 1 16:06:20 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2E703A6A20 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2009 16:06:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y5VSsg3OM5+C for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2009 16:06:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhost.dizzyd.com (dizzyd.com [207.210.219.225]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9561A3A67A1 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2009 16:06:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-227.cisco.com (dhcp-64-101-72-227.cisco.com [64.101.72.227]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by mailhost.dizzyd.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6BDC240077 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2009 17:06:16 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4A245EE7.1050409@stpeter.im> Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 17:06:15 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: xmpp@ietf.org X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [xmpp] bis drafts X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 23:06:20 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I have submitted draft-ietf-xmpp-3920bis and draft-ietf-xmpp-3921bis. Because these are -00 versions, they must be approved for publication. Until then you can find them here: http://xmpp.org/internet-drafts/ Enjoy! Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkokXucACgkQNL8k5A2w/vzojACgncgkRP62CeASB+/5R/3z4RKf fTQAoMjHxe+B6GNOPoOU7/CHSdAeKsFv =gsPd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From root@core3.amsl.com Tue Jun 2 07:00:02 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xmpp@ietf.org Delivered-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 0C2103A6B1B; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 07:00:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20090602140002.0C2103A6B1B@core3.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 07:00:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 07:12:07 -0700 Cc: xmpp@ietf.org Subject: [xmpp] I-D Action:draft-ietf-xmpp-3921bis-00.txt X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 14:00:02 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol Working Group of the IETF. Title : Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging and Presence Author(s) : P. Saint-Andre Filename : draft-ietf-xmpp-3921bis-00.txt Pages : 97 Date : 2009-06-01 This document defines extensions to core features of the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) that provide basic instant messaging (IM) and presence functionality in conformance with RFC 2779. This document obsoletes RFC 3921. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-xmpp-3921bis-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-xmpp-3921bis-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2009-06-02064920.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From root@core3.amsl.com Tue Jun 2 07:00:02 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xmpp@ietf.org Delivered-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 10F653A6B1F; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 07:00:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20090602140002.10F653A6B1F@core3.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 07:00:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 07:12:07 -0700 Cc: xmpp@ietf.org Subject: [xmpp] I-D Action:draft-ietf-xmpp-3920bis-00.txt X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 14:00:02 -0000 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol Working Group of the IETF. Title : Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Core Author(s) : P. Saint-Andre Filename : draft-ietf-xmpp-3920bis-00.txt Pages : 161 Date : 2009-06-01 This document defines the core features of the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP), a technology for streaming Extensible Markup Language (XML) elements for the purpose of exchanging structured information in close to real time between any two or more network-aware entities. XMPP provides a generalized, extensible framework for incrementally exchanging XML data, upon which a variety of applications can be built. The framework includes methods for stream setup and teardown, channel encryption, authentication of a client to a server and of one server to another server, and primitives for push-style messages, publication of network availability information ("presence"), and request-response interactions. This document also specifies the format for XMPP addresses, which are fully internationalizable. This document obsoletes RFC 3920. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-xmpp-3920bis-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-xmpp-3920bis-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2009-06-02065219.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From stpeter@stpeter.im Tue Jun 2 11:12:18 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B738228C12D for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 11:12:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 49uZUsrYaxML for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 11:12:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhost.dizzyd.com (dizzyd.com [207.210.219.225]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED8213A6E64 for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 11:12:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-227.cisco.com (dhcp-64-101-72-227.cisco.com [64.101.72.227]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by mailhost.dizzyd.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C655240C5F for ; Tue, 2 Jun 2009 12:12:18 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4A256B81.4080601@stpeter.im> Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 12:12:17 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: xmpp@ietf.org X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [xmpp] requirements docs X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 18:12:18 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Our charter has the following milestones: "Decide upon a direction for server-to-server connection reuse." "Decide upon a direction for end-to-end encryption." As input to those decisions, IMHO we need requirements documents. Currently for the first we have: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hildebrand-xmpp-tls-multiplexing For the second we could repurpose and update XEP-0210: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0210.html (E.g., http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-meyer-xmpp-e2e-encryption references XEP-0210.) If there is interest in the latter, I can convert it from XEP to I-D format and submit it as an individual submission before it is considered for acceptance as a WG item. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkola4EACgkQNL8k5A2w/vzcuQCeNvNqLxY2IOGNY/lbzsBelPw/ qWIAoKtmDda8bH9K4IjkWwW1R/B/rqCP =8Xwm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From stpeter@stpeter.im Fri Jun 5 14:07:15 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AF483A6BC5 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2009 14:07:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.501 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.006, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yE1Sa06jkfx2 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2009 14:07:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailhost.dizzyd.com (unknown [207.210.219.225]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 535393A67B5 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2009 14:07:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-227.cisco.com (dhcp-64-101-72-227.cisco.com [64.101.72.227]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by mailhost.dizzyd.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7664640CA7 for ; Fri, 5 Jun 2009 15:07:17 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4A298904.80707@stpeter.im> Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:07:16 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: xmpp@ietf.org X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [xmpp] [Fwd: I-D Action:draft-saintandre-xmpp-e2e-requirements-00.txt] X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:07:15 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 FYI, this is essentially a modified version of XEP-0210. Feedback is welcome so that we can clarify the requirements and then get to work on solutions. :) /psa - -------- Original Message -------- Subject: I-D Action:draft-saintandre-xmpp-e2e-requirements-00.txt Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:00:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Requirements for End-to-End Encryption in the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) Author(s) : P. Saint-Andre Filename : draft-saintandre-xmpp-e2e-requirements-00.txt Pages : 7 Date : 2009-06-05 This document describes requirements for end-to-end encryption in the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-xmpp-e2e-requirements-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkopiQQACgkQNL8k5A2w/vzlbACgj7dzFOInYKL53Z3yi5o0YfJO NskAoOFfZR/fLQHb/0Z48gldb7NQObSf =PeHb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From turners@ieca.com Mon Jun 8 06:05:17 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B01A3A679F for ; Mon, 8 Jun 2009 06:05:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N9-U5Kr5DU1g for ; Mon, 8 Jun 2009 06:05:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp103.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com (smtp103.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com [68.142.229.217]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3CEED3A6C84 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 2009 06:05:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 11417 invoked from network); 8 Jun 2009 13:05:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thunderfish.local) (turners@129.6.248.49 with plain) by smtp103.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Jun 2009 13:05:17 -0000 X-Yahoo-SMTP: qPTWNAeswBAtDTSn9GKlmmL3C90ke7grn_5n9To- X-YMail-OSG: WWoHUhAVM1n1bWT8irAgb7HWvc6L.q3vaP2WqYcIUVYX7tScMp8xKibSTuvLJ_sotCSmo5VuDfxw3T2PaOE72_gj8SsPKmCA_lFolg3Nymcyq8ialhqAluDo6FLaArWQVVKMdeMdum2AApb1c1kRxyglOt_B1gCyOB2IuYisEHDdlnCyBhaR9yXyBktcikkujojLCzvDhzZLILZGC2SdNCJl.GjqlP.77fc9A_EMrA_S.QQO.fNSVjok9BosEy1b5SrnS1z6FUHTvfbdhsKE4_DSAkMzmC3yYg7VpJDqPA0HDdSR3LzTf_6DNed_uMa_lrjM2Ny2JHvwRMyQK0Z236qUjEXvwhHQFCg- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 Message-ID: <4A2D0C84.3010302@ieca.com> Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 09:05:08 -0400 From: Sean Turner User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: XMPP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [xmpp] Proposed WG Item: Server-to-Server Connection Reuse X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 13:05:17 -0000 The following ID has been proposed as WG item to aid the WG by enumerating the requirements for Server-to-Server Connection Reuse and is aimed at completing our 1st milestone in March 2010: Title : Multiplexing of Connections between Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) Servers Using Transport Layer Security (TLS) Author(s) : J. Hildebrand, P. Saint-Andre Filename : draft-hildebrand-xmpp-tls-multiplexing-00.txt Pages : 5 Date : 2009-05-08 A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hildebrand-xmpp-tls-multiplexing-00.txt Please indicate whether or not you believe this is a good place start. Note: if you indicate it is not, please provide rationale and alternatives. spt co-chair xmpp wg From turners@ieca.com Mon Jun 8 06:05:28 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A8AF28C119 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 2009 06:05:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QBGw6CKDpVpi for ; Mon, 8 Jun 2009 06:05:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp101.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com (smtp101.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com [68.142.229.215]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3F86F28C116 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 2009 06:05:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 99697 invoked from network); 8 Jun 2009 13:05:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thunderfish.local) (turners@129.6.248.49 with plain) by smtp101.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Jun 2009 13:05:30 -0000 X-Yahoo-SMTP: qPTWNAeswBAtDTSn9GKlmmL3C90ke7grn_5n9To- X-YMail-OSG: Mi2coy8VM1lpO2ayb3Rlb4XJXz.nAjm02560W5mCq23zEEAeT8fXdv8zL0bD8flFfYAUw6jv.h7kNs9rpktLOr50SfimTQgfJZJ8M1uddTb1JAQrUVxL8OnWlKlPcHEhRqKX4Wr.HB16xocxxWd3Rnt.Ph._K9k.4CGgLsxQzpz9rcPX0vhzumAr8vn0J2bSdmEOjRszKyhOd3H64X0FX_zehbhComrPVvgk5FjfSfmo06iZ8nY1Ps26ftXj0iLnxb_Ieh9nvKMcK_FEmRznf2RanKGNxo2NCWWeU_vIzwRKwVo4zckortvQoN0NtnZUUTojrPkycBC5fPUTQ59unydYV9tQ12OlLqM- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 Message-ID: <4A2D0C96.4070809@ieca.com> Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 09:05:26 -0400 From: Sean Turner User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: XMPP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [xmpp] Proposed WG Item: End-to-End Encryption Requirements X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 13:05:28 -0000 The following ID has been proposed as WG item to aid the WG by enumerating the requirements for End-to-End Encryption and is aimed at completing our 3rd milestone in December 2010: Title : Requirements for End-to-End Encryption in the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) Author(s) : P. Saint-Andre Filename : draft-saintandre-xmpp-e2e-requirements-00.txt Pages : 7 Date : 2009-06-05 A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-xmpp-e2e-requirements-00.txt Please indicate whether or not you believe this is a good place start. Note: if you indicate it is not, please provide rationale and alternatives. spt co-chair xmpp wg From dave@cridland.net Tue Jun 9 09:04:12 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FBC63A6A0E for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 09:04:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.247 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.247 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.352, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JbgDempbVs15 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 09:04:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from peirce.dave.cridland.net (peirce.dave.cridland.net [217.155.137.61]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 976233A67AF for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 09:04:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from puncture ((unknown) [217.155.137.60]) by peirce.dave.cridland.net (submission) via TCP with ESMTPA id for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 17:04:05 +0100 X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: NORDNS MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <12130.1244563442.419272@puncture> Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:04:02 +0100 From: Dave Cridland To: Content-Type: text/plain; delsp="yes"; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" Subject: [xmpp] Drafts proposed for adoption X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:04:12 -0000 Both of these look like reasonable start points to me. I'd note that in draft-hildebrand-xmpp-tls-multiplexing, quite a lot of these requirements don't seem like requirements to me - they look like design decisions. That's not a bad thing, of course, but it'd be interesting to see if everyong agrees with them. Dave. -- Dave Cridland - mailto:dave@cridland.net - xmpp:dwd@dave.cridland.net - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ - http://dave.cridland.net/ Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade From turners@ieca.com Sun Jun 21 13:43:14 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A4523A6877 for ; Sun, 21 Jun 2009 13:43:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hxCqh-51nCoE for ; Sun, 21 Jun 2009 13:43:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp108.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com (smtp108.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com [206.190.52.47]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 873E83A694E for ; Sun, 21 Jun 2009 13:43:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 48293 invoked from network); 21 Jun 2009 20:43:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thunderfish.local) (turners@71.191.10.138 with plain) by smtp108.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Jun 2009 20:43:26 -0000 X-Yahoo-SMTP: qPTWNAeswBAtDTSn9GKlmmL3C90ke7grn_5n9To- X-YMail-OSG: l.YoBFwVM1mB3B8IiXfHbr9MRubVxWkI2hiqL.3eUxtRpLkfGFjIHKD1hqoTh3gq3E0GmdzsokR0RMmLWbwya2ceOyHKCZuiKLhLFAOd9B4_rVsl6rP7FLPTvba.6hfsN2t8XfwUVwqqmW6AsQzGx3ZqsfaHJRu6A8rMC0QZKZwa7paO0bpD7IGw_CUXz1RtDdtcnoRNJ2yG74kXZYb6mK89S348zviFnS3UmcQuA8Ej9Q2mO3F_wmO2O3PUSyyI6bX5Lq5B7eYxQbsWP44qcVKioJc0OjmI X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 Message-ID: <4A3E9B6E.2020200@ieca.com> Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 16:43:26 -0400 From: Sean Turner User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: XMPP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [xmpp] Roster Protection on Server? X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 20:43:14 -0000 In reading draft-ietf-xmpp-3921bis-00.txt, I'm curious why there are no requirements to protect the roster that's stored on the server. Was this discussed previously and determined to be out of scope? spt From metajack@gmail.com Sun Jun 21 13:54:20 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4096B3A6D77 for ; Sun, 21 Jun 2009 13:54:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VhevkNFGxSOQ for ; Sun, 21 Jun 2009 13:54:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ew0-f210.google.com (mail-ew0-f210.google.com [209.85.219.210]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 552CB3A6D76 for ; Sun, 21 Jun 2009 13:54:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ewy6 with SMTP id 6so4184558ewy.37 for ; Sun, 21 Jun 2009 13:54:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=SMmweWLtakLnSbufiXbmZ2JCcAZk5H0DdT2irXNN2zY=; b=D2ikhrfaUVKV/0WMYQo76jMeH2th/qc4pmfDrCbx9MkJZBTeYC6Nnl1/rqCbOnV1tQ 3z5QCt9vPU0H/BDoEtbo3EvMVn0taVu2KwZ6cNF2YFfubAeDHWdhflfGMU4qLY/VQ7zt pNdWZK+8vaTq5UC4ywjrZU9uVf3PNyJeFy1bE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=fWCZXVG7O6OQiVaREvPFiZGpouq/U8PeKd2VzLWyiYw51S816u3wyV6jHaXCvspa89 8k+WEb6J/YRjlfayCplzPa4a1rAeJXBZnLWQfAFKOOmwXSiCWhazmfKl+HF4r/FxcNXj 48MSW3bXg6VIWNvqY1MtbYDDHTUATp7mjVPcE= MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: metajack@gmail.com Received: by 10.216.52.194 with SMTP id e44mr1927925wec.34.1245617671504; Sun, 21 Jun 2009 13:54:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4A3E9B6E.2020200@ieca.com> References: <4A3E9B6E.2020200@ieca.com> Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:54:31 -0600 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 72114aea738986f0 Message-ID: <9b58f4550906211354k7ecbe459te66b7bd9db513415@mail.gmail.com> From: Jack Moffitt To: XMPP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [xmpp] Roster Protection on Server? X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 20:54:20 -0000 > In reading draft-ietf-xmpp-3921bis-00.txt, I'm curious why there are no > requirements to protect the roster that's stored on the server. =A0Was th= is > discussed previously and determined to be out of scope? Protect from what? We'll need an appropriate threat model before we can address it. jack. From Joe.Hildebrand@webex.com Sun Jun 21 20:42:56 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A21093A69F6 for ; Sun, 21 Jun 2009 20:42:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.203 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EZqrNaeD7vZW for ; Sun, 21 Jun 2009 20:42:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw2.webex.com (gw2.webex.com [64.68.122.209]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C52633A68DD for ; Sun, 21 Jun 2009 20:42:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SRV-EXSC03.webex.local ([192.168.252.197]) by gw2.webex.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sun, 21 Jun 2009 20:43:10 -0700 Received: from 10.21.88.138 ([10.21.88.138]) by SRV-EXSC03.webex.local ([192.168.252.200]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 03:43:10 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.19.0.090515 Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:43:07 -0600 From: Joe Hildebrand To: XMPP Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [xmpp] Roster Protection on Server? Thread-Index: AcnysnzamV3dj9VsTGeAt6ypvLxEwQAOREhc In-Reply-To: <9b58f4550906211354k7ecbe459te66b7bd9db513415@mail.gmail.com> IM-ID: xmpp:jhildebrand@corp.jabber.com Presence-ID: xmpp:jhildebrand@corp.jabber.com Jabber-ID: jhildebrand@corp.jabber.com Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jun 2009 03:43:10.0441 (UTC) FILETIME=[90076590:01C9F2EB] Subject: Re: [xmpp] Roster Protection on Server? X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 03:42:56 -0000 It may be that section 2.1.3 needs another rule, that servers SHOULD ignore changes sent from other accounts; that's pretty obvious in our world, but it's worth writing down. I'd say SHOULD with the caveat that there may be authorized 3rd parties that can change a roster (with that authorization ou= t of scope of this document). Of course, there should be a not-allowed or not-authorized error returned in this case. On 6/21/09 2:54 PM, "Jack Moffitt" wrote: >> In reading draft-ietf-xmpp-3921bis-00.txt, I'm curious why there are no >> requirements to protect the roster that's stored on the server. =A0Was thi= s >> discussed previously and determined to be out of scope? >=20 > Protect from what? We'll need an appropriate threat model before we > can address it. >=20 > jack. > _______________________________________________ > xmpp mailing list > xmpp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp --=20 Joe Hildebrand From dave@cridland.net Mon Jun 22 01:12:12 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53E353A689D for ; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 01:12:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.423 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.423 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.176, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7QH0V0qgLKZG for ; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 01:12:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from peirce.dave.cridland.net (peirce.dave.cridland.net [217.155.137.61]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AAC73A69E3 for ; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 01:12:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from puncture ((unknown) [217.155.137.60]) by peirce.dave.cridland.net (submission) via TCP with ESMTPA id ; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:12:16 +0100 X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: NORDNS References: <4A3E9B6E.2020200@ieca.com> In-Reply-To: <4A3E9B6E.2020200@ieca.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <26070.1245658329.712436@puncture> Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:12:09 +0100 From: Dave Cridland To: Sean Turner , XMPP Working Group Content-Type: text/plain; delsp="yes"; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" Subject: Re: [xmpp] Roster Protection on Server? X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 08:12:12 -0000 On Sun Jun 21 21:43:26 2009, Sean Turner wrote: > In reading draft-ietf-xmpp-3921bis-00.txt, I'm curious why there > are no requirements to protect the roster that's stored on the > server. Was this discussed previously and determined to be out of > scope? I'm with Jack on this one. I think at best it's worth addressing in the Security Considerations; viz. "The user's roster can contain confidential data, and access to this data must be suitably restricted to the user, and, potentially, authorized third parties." Might be worthwhile adding a pointer there to XMPP-CORE section 15.11, but that in itself needs additional text to note that from the perspective of example.net, there's no method for distinguishing between nurse@example.com and juliet@example.com. (ie, with foreign domains, only the domain can be authorized with assurance). While I'm here, as it were, the fourth bullet in XMPP-IM's Section 11 is largely the same thing as XMPP-CORE's 15.15 - I think some consolidation, and possibly cross-referencing, is in order. Dave. -- Dave Cridland - mailto:dave@cridland.net - xmpp:dwd@dave.cridland.net - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ - http://dave.cridland.net/ Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade From stpeter@stpeter.im Mon Jun 22 10:27:43 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE07928C220 for ; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:27:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.339 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.339 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.260, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6V35zk4aSv4J for ; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:27:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F63B28C1F3 for ; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:27:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-227.cisco.com (dhcp-64-101-72-227.cisco.com [64.101.72.227]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6C2164007B; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:27:55 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4A3FBF1A.3060005@stpeter.im> Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:27:54 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joe Hildebrand , xmpp@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [xmpp] Roster Protection on Server? X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:27:43 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 6/21/09 9:43 PM, Joe Hildebrand wrote: > > On 6/21/09 2:54 PM, "Jack Moffitt" wrote: > >>> In reading draft-ietf-xmpp-3921bis-00.txt, I'm curious why there are no >>> requirements to protect the roster that's stored on the server. Was this >>> discussed previously and determined to be out of scope? >> >> Protect from what? We'll need an appropriate threat model before we >> can address it. >> > It may be that section 2.1.3 needs another rule, that servers SHOULD ignore > changes sent from other accounts; that's pretty obvious in our world, but > it's worth writing down. I'd say SHOULD with the caveat that there may be > authorized 3rd parties that can change a roster (with that authorization out > of scope of this document). Of course, there should be a not-allowed or > not-authorized error returned in this case. Why not force an authorized third party to use something like ad-hoc commands (cf. XEP-0133) to change another person's roster, rather than overloading jabber:iq:roster? Personally I'd like to change as many SHOULDs to MUSTs as possible... Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAko/vxoACgkQNL8k5A2w/vxg2QCfULLaqBRKs8I5Ko2Hw7qWCcUe q7YAn0XLW15/oXb92y8/fWT5NdvLWQ3O =Mp1d -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From Joe.Hildebrand@webex.com Mon Jun 22 10:30:39 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5391928C213 for ; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:30:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.532 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FKYln6j2j9+G for ; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:30:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw2.webex.com (gw2.webex.com [64.68.122.209]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8D61928C159 for ; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:30:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SRV-EXSC03.webex.local ([192.168.252.197]) by gw2.webex.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:30:53 -0700 Received: from 64.101.74.200 ([64.101.74.200]) by SRV-EXSC03.webex.local ([192.168.252.200]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:30:53 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.19.0.090515 Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:30:52 -0600 From: Joe Hildebrand To: Peter Saint-Andre , Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [xmpp] Roster Protection on Server? Thread-Index: AcnzXspILWWCmD2QTVOAK+oWxA8WqgAAGZX7 In-Reply-To: <4A3FBF1A.3060005@stpeter.im> IM-ID: xmpp:jhildebrand@corp.jabber.com Presence-ID: xmpp:jhildebrand@corp.jabber.com Jabber-ID: jhildebrand@corp.jabber.com Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jun 2009 17:30:53.0616 (UTC) FILETIME=[31968300:01C9F35F] Subject: Re: [xmpp] Roster Protection on Server? X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:30:39 -0000 On 6/22/09 11:27 AM, "Peter Saint-Andre" wrote: > Why not force an authorized third party to use something like ad-hoc > commands (cf. XEP-0133) to change another person's roster, rather than > overloading jabber:iq:roster? Personally I'd like to change as many > SHOULDs to MUSTs as possible... Fine. It was kind of an edge case anyway. -- Joe Hildebrand From Joe.Hildebrand@webex.com Tue Jun 23 11:15:18 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A8703A67AC for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:15:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.398, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xwH2AR3mgyjy for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:15:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw1.webex.com (gw1.webex.com [64.68.122.208]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5AA543A6C31 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:15:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SRV-EXSC03.webex.local ([192.168.252.197]) by gw1.webex.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:15:33 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:14:54 -0700 Message-ID: <952A4B1F81123B479292D4B5FDC00D850271B5B5@SRV-EXSC03.webex.local> In-Reply-To: <1d1fa7e80906222343w4726d743y22867d099c8ccf58@mail.gmail.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Standards] Modifying the schema for auth(RFC 3920) Thread-Index: AcnzzfAcUO3hYDmzQGWbYa34ehm46QAXsvvA References: <1d1fa7e80906222343w4726d743y22867d099c8ccf58@mail.gmail.com> From: "Joe Hildebrand" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jun 2009 18:15:33.0000 (UTC) FILETIME=[9909D080:01C9F42E] Cc: XMPP Standards Subject: Re: [xmpp] [Standards] Modifying the schema for auth(RFC 3920) X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:15:18 -0000 Moving the discussion to the XMPP working group mailing list since this = is RFC-related. It looks like Google's docs for this are here: http://code.google.com/apis/talk/jep_extensions/jid_domain_change.html Should the client just use this bare JID the next time it logs in? If = so, we may need to make a change to 3920bis to make this clear. If = we're contemplating making a change in -bis, we should make the correct = one, not just loosen up the schema. Of course, in your implementation, there's nothing that says you can't = use any schema you like to do validation, since validation is not = required and the schemas are non-normative. --=20 Joe Hildebrand From: standards-bounces@xmpp.org [mailto:standards-bounces@xmpp.org] On = Behalf Of Mittal Thakkar Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 12:43 AM To: standards@xmpp.org Subject: [Standards] Modifying the schema for auth(RFC 3920) Hi, The clients using the libpurple 2.6.x like Adium and Pidgin sends the = following stanza for auth : . At our server xml parsing fails as in the schema for auth it supports = only one attribute ie. mechanism. wrt. Appendix C.4 of RFC 3920. Is it valid if we allow any attribute( of other namespace ) for the = as RFC is silent about it. The schema we want to use is as = follows: =A0=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0 =A0 --=20 Thanks, Regards, Mittal Thakkar From zarevucky.jiri@gmail.com Tue Jun 23 14:34:29 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10B9728C117 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:34:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.699 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WiwuNhDPSvyn for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:34:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ew0-f210.google.com (mail-ew0-f210.google.com [209.85.219.210]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9904C28C107 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:34:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ewy6 with SMTP id 6so588682ewy.37 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:34:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=mrFCmPr8oq3iprtsO/YIdACzOHA+Zvsdw1b/hZnpKJc=; b=DNsvf+nl2euNXGPb5EyG2eOTpG8uOT/vx644E/6Ylw8s+VOIDGR11syvruDFUfezPV E2zi1bTrHTWrogFPidN2KqJWCKXD2GPg3frvLr4lPgND5geyzHxEbkGa7WrytCO4EPem uFMs182xg/eL1ssGWD/9NO8mUSsbXvQnWp70A= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=jn242wYfoiq7DcFUZxRjIawYZFihnOmRP0UiMiZCF5ZkR3MO3+yTMyf30F52Jjt0P+ P2x1Oy7ZpXzb/G7eVsbVxjCCeSDqu5ubbqet/QqCl+uFbZp4wb4gpuXWLzyzCCNQzv3h RqIrhptrjl5b8SZsjI5enH1UmUk/GfZz/9jwk= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.210.78.16 with SMTP id a16mr6832499ebb.75.1245792881828; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:34:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <952A4B1F81123B479292D4B5FDC00D850271B5B5@SRV-EXSC03.webex.local> References: <1d1fa7e80906222343w4726d743y22867d099c8ccf58@mail.gmail.com> <952A4B1F81123B479292D4B5FDC00D850271B5B5@SRV-EXSC03.webex.local> Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:34:41 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?SmnFmcOtIFrDoXJldsO6Y2t5?= To: Joe Hildebrand Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: XMPP Standards , xmpp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [xmpp] [Standards] Modifying the schema for auth(RFC 3920) X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:34:29 -0000 2009/6/23 Joe Hildebrand : > Moving the discussion to the XMPP working group mailing list since this i= s RFC-related. > > It looks like Google's docs for this are here: > > http://code.google.com/apis/talk/jep_extensions/jid_domain_change.html > > Should the client just use this bare JID the next time it logs in? =C2=A0= If so, we may need to make a change to 3920bis to make this clear. =C2=A0If= we're contemplating making a change in -bis, we should make the correct on= e, not just loosen up the schema. In my opinion, this is a pretty Google-specific problem. In normal XMPP world, user account is strictly defined by the combination of node identifier and domain name. This google "extension" allows user to log in with different domain, then the one user registered with. If we are to modify the spec about this, we must also allow one account to have multiple JIDs, which in turn would require a way to retrieve all the account's aliases (for the proper handling on another servers), along with proper security considerations and so on... > > Of course, in your implementation, there's nothing that says you can't us= e any schema you like to do validation, since validation is not required an= d the schemas are non-normative. > IMHO, validation is completely useless on an XMPP server. It just slows it down and possibly breaks it on any unexpected input. The server should handle the communication as long as there is everything needed. Not kick client in the butt for something that shouldn't be here. > -- > Joe Hildebrand > > > > > From: standards-bounces@xmpp.org [mailto:standards-bounces@xmpp.org] On B= ehalf Of Mittal Thakkar > Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 12:43 AM > To: standards@xmpp.org > Subject: [Standards] Modifying the schema for auth(RFC 3920) > > Hi, > > The clients using the libpurple 2.6.x like Adium and Pidgin sends the fol= lowing stanza for auth : > . > At our server xml parsing fails as in the schema for auth it supports onl= y one attribute ie. mechanism. wrt. Appendix C.4 of RFC 3920. > > Is it valid if we allow any attribute( of other namespace ) for the as RFC is silent about it. The schema we want to use is as follows: > > > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 type=3D'= xs:string' > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 use=3D'o= ptional'/> > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 > =C2=A0 > > > -- > Thanks, > Regards, > Mittal Thakkar > _______________________________________________ > xmpp mailing list > xmpp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp > From stpeter@stpeter.im Thu Jun 25 10:14:12 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDDC83A6832 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:14:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.095 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.096, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_66=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JnfAby1Cv9PE for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:14:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B269C3A6DF3 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:13:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-227.cisco.com (dhcp-64-101-72-227.cisco.com [64.101.72.227]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 330C0400EE for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:12:18 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4A43AFF1.6030609@stpeter.im> Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:12:17 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Macintosh/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: xmpp@ietf.org X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [xmpp] what goes where? X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:14:13 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The division between "core" and "im/pres" (RFC 3920 and RFC 3921) reflected a preference expressed by Pete Resnick, co-chair of the original XMPP WG (2002-2004). I have a few questions: 1. Do people find this division useful? 2. Would it be better or worse to combine this material into one large specification? 3. Would some other division be even more useful? For example, I have long toyed with the following: - - One spec for XML streams, which would be agnostic regarding the default namespace and thus show people how they could use XML streams for default namespaces other than jabber:client and jabber:server. This would be essentially Sections 1-7 of draft-ietf-xmpp-3920bis-00, along with most of Sections 12, 14, 15, and 16. - - One spec for the "Jabber" application, i.e., the jabber:client and jabber:server namespaces. This would essentially be Sections 8, 9, and 11 of draft-ietf-xmpp-3920bis-00 along with all of 3921bis. While such an approach has a certain conceptual appeal, I think it would be a lot of work to split up the content in that way, and I have my doubts that the results would be worth the time and effort required. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkpDr/EACgkQNL8k5A2w/vxx4ACguxOBlN8qp/5ks+IhRJhZ+c3a FJsAnAiErpi1rxGvcaNUzNM46oyen93T =jU5O -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From zarevucky.jiri@gmail.com Thu Jun 25 11:25:32 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E58FD3A68DC for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:25:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IamOqsnou5VW for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:25:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ew0-f210.google.com (mail-ew0-f210.google.com [209.85.219.210]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2EF73A659B for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:25:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ewy6 with SMTP id 6so2559036ewy.37 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:23:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=1u/8sQeJfuEbXWovCFtqZh2AsH6QScU3yEhS3gup7o4=; b=aV50aP3ECo4oIhDdwywaCYhDf6ddCZdvJctYy6qZmD2GkqlVml8ZmrucK1dmtIOkQw Pa/OpP70hJXc0MgN3ilXgtMcrWRq8dzMSHC+a64Re92AtLQMiR7Y0UccEaOVzNMsyvTM wF7HPUsNWw0hy+NP7wKlCFcKE/EtByg3r84PU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=JQIoBHTBjKXJ2tvDB3ykf5hLpkP1je0jnD0dGNySRJNg4+t92nR5GMk3VNY8yDnDO0 qgEVoIUy0TsUo1orqIULERX34ERc4zhyKnIdzKWLKD/FGW1bDg3+8sIdrKaN870VFl6j IN+kZuQIWWVEep8zBIjrXJQoLfsdZspw0sKns= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.210.17.14 with SMTP id 14mr3221995ebq.12.1245952470940; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:54:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4A43AFF1.6030609@stpeter.im> References: <4A43AFF1.6030609@stpeter.im> Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:54:30 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?SmnFmcOtIFrDoXJldsO6Y2t5?= To: Peter Saint-Andre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xmpp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [xmpp] what goes where? X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:25:32 -0000 2009/6/25 Peter Saint-Andre : > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > The division between "core" and "im/pres" (RFC 3920 and RFC 3921) > reflected a preference expressed by Pete Resnick, co-chair of the > original XMPP WG (2002-2004). I have a few questions: > > 1. Do people find this division useful? > I certainly do. > 2. Would it be better or worse to combine this material into one large > specification? > I think it would be worse. I like the way CORE describes stream/session initiation and tear-down, while IM is just about stanza semantics. > 3. Would some other division be even more useful? For example, I have > long toyed with the following: > I'm skeptical about that. The current division seems logical to me. > > While such an approach has a certain conceptual appeal, I think it would > be a lot of work to split up the content in that way, and I have my > doubts that the results would be worth the time and effort required. > I agree that such change wouldn't be worthwhile. > Peter > From cking@mumbo.ca Thu Jun 25 11:37:01 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B1483A6B58 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:37:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.521 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.745, BAYES_05=-1.11, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5Wucg+CfTev5 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:37:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from renoir.mumbo.ca (renoir.mumbo.ca [67.223.232.134]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D742E3A68FA for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:37:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.15] (S0106001b63f2007e.gv.shawcable.net [24.69.170.86]) by renoir.mumbo.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPA id CAAD7500D1; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:35:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <61E0ABBF-57F3-4ACD-9542-FBC397015EB6@mumbo.ca> From: Curtis King To: Peter Saint-Andre In-Reply-To: <4A43AFF1.6030609@stpeter.im> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:35:32 -0700 References: <4A43AFF1.6030609@stpeter.im> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3) Cc: xmpp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [xmpp] what goes where? X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:37:01 -0000 On 25-Jun-09, at 10:12 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > 1. Do people find this division useful? Yes. > > 2. Would it be better or worse to combine this material into one large > specification? much worse. > > 3. Would some other division be even more useful? I also think it would be worse to split the RFCs up too much. Note: I'm in favor of getting the bis drafts moved to RFC status sooner than later, as they are hugh improvement over current RFCs. I think it will be hard to make any more significant improvements to the drafts. ck From alexey.melnikov@isode.com Thu Jun 25 12:20:15 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DBD53A684D for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:20:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.574 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ji-r2XkMz61u for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:20:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42F283A6A91 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:20:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [94.197.225.41] (94.197.225.41.threembb.co.uk [94.197.225.41]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id ; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 20:19:17 +0100 Message-ID: <4A43CD8A.2080808@isode.com> Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 20:18:34 +0100 From: Alexey Melnikov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Peter Saint-Andre References: <4A43AFF1.6030609@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: <4A43AFF1.6030609@stpeter.im> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xmpp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [xmpp] what goes where? X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:20:15 -0000 Hi Peter, In my capacity of an individual contributor: Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >The division between "core" and "im/pres" (RFC 3920 and RFC 3921) >reflected a preference expressed by Pete Resnick, co-chair of the >original XMPP WG (2002-2004). I have a few questions: > >1. Do people find this division useful? > Yes. >2. Would it be better or worse to combine this material into one large >specification? > > I think combining would be worse. I personally hate big documents. >3. Would some other division be even more useful? For example, I have >long toyed with the following: > > Further partitioning might be helpful, but only if you have time to do it ;-). As counter argument: keep in mind that preserving existing structure might help diffing the new documents against original RFCs. This is *very* helpful to IESG ;-). From stpeter@stpeter.im Thu Jun 25 13:11:17 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB4B03A67E3 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:11:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.388 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.388 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.211, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1W9f3M1pOEd9 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:11:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D99E23A67E2 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:11:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-227.cisco.com (dhcp-64-101-72-227.cisco.com [64.101.72.227]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9F7E74007B; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:10:12 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4A43D9A3.5070702@stpeter.im> Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:10:11 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Macintosh/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexey Melnikov References: <4A43AFF1.6030609@stpeter.im> <4A43CD8A.2080808@isode.com> In-Reply-To: <4A43CD8A.2080808@isode.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xmpp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [xmpp] what goes where? X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 20:11:18 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 6/25/09 1:18 PM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > Hi Peter, > In my capacity of an individual contributor: > > Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > >> The division between "core" and "im/pres" (RFC 3920 and RFC 3921) >> reflected a preference expressed by Pete Resnick, co-chair of the >> original XMPP WG (2002-2004). I have a few questions: >> >> 1. Do people find this division useful? >> > Yes. OK. >> 2. Would it be better or worse to combine this material into one large >> specification? >> >> > I think combining would be worse. I personally hate big documents. Me, too. >> 3. Would some other division be even more useful? For example, I have >> long toyed with the following: >> >> > Further partitioning might be helpful, but only if you have time to do > it ;-). I think the cost/benefit ratio is not favorable. There are more productive ways for me to spend my time... > As counter argument: keep in mind that preserving existing structure > might help diffing the new documents against original RFCs. This is > *very* helpful to IESG ;-). Duly noted. :) Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkpD2aMACgkQNL8k5A2w/vxrzgCgz+S9HkhSh9VX3REGyi2W/Bfy Ae8An0d1at99kY48yjhEkb3uVlc/K8JR =jrse -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From stpeter@stpeter.im Thu Jun 25 13:27:39 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D7503A6972 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:27:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.401 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.198, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mzzHW5dKJqRy for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:27:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBF0D3A68A4 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:27:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-227.cisco.com (dhcp-64-101-72-227.cisco.com [64.101.72.227]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A7D984007B; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:16:39 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4A43DB26.5000401@stpeter.im> Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:16:38 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Macintosh/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Curtis King References: <4A43AFF1.6030609@stpeter.im> <61E0ABBF-57F3-4ACD-9542-FBC397015EB6@mumbo.ca> In-Reply-To: <61E0ABBF-57F3-4ACD-9542-FBC397015EB6@mumbo.ca> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xmpp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [xmpp] what goes where? X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 20:27:39 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 6/25/09 12:35 PM, Curtis King wrote: > Note: I'm in favor of getting the bis drafts moved to RFC status sooner > than later, as they are hugh improvement over current RFCs. I think it > will be hard to make any more significant improvements to the drafts. Why, thanks! I have put a lot of work into the bis drafts. My goal is for them to be the best RFCs ever written. :) IMHO there are still some things we need to fix in these specs, but we can file issues in the issue tracker: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/xmpp/trac/report/1 I'll start to do that soon. In fact anyone can file issues, just sign up for an account here: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/newpasswd Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkpD2yYACgkQNL8k5A2w/vw80gCgmgXKqafBx2RiJg88F4/u9C6r 3ssAoNUhdRswIoALyLoO3ZvA2qx27vnv =nbVR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From mwild1@gmail.com Thu Jun 25 18:54:33 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 277083A68FF for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:54:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.372 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.372 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AqCps7P3NgXp for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:54:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f213.google.com (mail-bw0-f213.google.com [209.85.218.213]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2674D3A695F for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:54:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bwz9 with SMTP id 9so1765361bwz.37 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:54:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=EpeUvv+g1wJsNSPWeSN3NuEBlNS6XTbYWoVRHDv4Els=; b=JDZD8w9Rhg1PoUoxj3emdTuKo9bqGLg/eEJIcj9Y84LzjYB9Zg8fDrmvU8Dnskz1Ou K/NF7Rl6tsOWHU9AlZkJLTtYarRnH6feBTVMJ+cMC0OCQSqqrSv1/JeTW+F5gTSbttn+ wVjX9hwAtngjx3YmOnY7obZBifph6GSjvOezU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=cqpOBO82/sHCrF+xEc+XiMJ44epnHv7cJ68WESaa9q5ay93Wk38CNwBYvlQJ479UI7 QB+kbxWLpgYi/fdoChejwej4zNt+3TBNGWEAoYjLWw8jRGGsyyZ+pTP5YdB6BVJk5C2Q cOIVm5pmkkoFQ505F1c1EGK9VwS68t496YPsk= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.53.143 with SMTP id m15mr3123493bkg.112.1245981266638; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:54:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 02:54:26 +0100 Message-ID: <4db9cacb0906251854oc277f6g1340e9a921ab34@mail.gmail.com> From: Matthew Wild To: xmpp@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [xmpp] Routing of IQs to full JIDs - special cases? X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:54:33 -0000 Hi all, I promised Peter to post this issue here for discussion, so here we go. The other day it was brought to my attention that RFC3921bis has this to say about roster sets in 2.1.3: 3. The server MUST ignore any 'to' address specified on the IQ This conflicts with the server's duty to route IQs to full JIDs to connected clients or remote servers, for example RFC3920bis section 11.2.3.3: If the JID contained in the 'to' attribute is of the form and there is a connected resource that exactly matches the full JID, the server SHOULD deliver the stanza to that connected resource. I don't like this special-casing of roster sets. For example it makes no sense to ignore the 'to' attribute if the stanza came from an s2s connection. What to do then? If the protection is to prevent users modifying others' rosters then I believe the protection to be in the wrong place. A server needs to verify that the sender is authorised to perform the action in any case, and reply appropriately if not. I propose that point 3 of section 2.1.3 be dropped, and possibly in its place some text to advise that the server should verify that the sender is permitted to modify the roster, otherwise the appropriate auth error be bounced. Note that I personally wouldn't like wording suggesting that the server must check the roster is actually the sender's - for example an implementation might choose to allow a trusted local component to modify users' rosters using roster sets. I look forward to hearing the opinion of others on this, Matthew From dave@cridland.net Fri Jun 26 02:11:13 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09D243A68A5 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 02:11:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.345 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.345 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mBDEPwl-LKcT for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 02:11:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from peirce.dave.cridland.net (peirce.dave.cridland.net [217.155.137.61]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B43883A67A4 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 02:11:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from puncture ((unknown) [217.155.137.60]) by peirce.dave.cridland.net (submission) via TCP with ESMTPA id ; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:59:02 +0100 X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: NORDNS References: <4db9cacb0906251854oc277f6g1340e9a921ab34@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4db9cacb0906251854oc277f6g1340e9a921ab34@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <4558.1246006736.489649@puncture> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:58:56 +0100 From: Dave Cridland To: Matthew Wild , XMPP Working Group Content-Type: text/plain; delsp="yes"; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" Subject: Re: [xmpp] Routing of IQs to full JIDs - special cases? X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:11:13 -0000 On Fri Jun 26 02:54:26 2009, Matthew Wild wrote: > The other day it was brought to my attention that RFC3921bis has > this > to say about roster sets in 2.1.3: > > 3. The server MUST ignore any 'to' address specified on the IQ > > This conflicts with the server's duty to route IQs to full JIDs to > connected clients or remote servers, for example RFC3920bis section > 11.2.3.3: > > If the JID contained in the 'to' attribute is of the form > and there is a connected resource that > exactly > matches the full JID, the server SHOULD deliver the stanza to > that > connected resource. > > FWIW, we don't ignore the to attribute - specifically, if someone sends us a roster set, we will route it like any other . > I don't like this special-casing of roster sets. For example it > makes > no sense to ignore the 'to' attribute if the stanza came from an s2s > connection. What to do then? If the protection is to prevent users > modifying others' rosters then I believe the protection to be in the > wrong place. A server needs to verify that the sender is authorised > to > perform the action in any case, and reply appropriately if not. > > I propose that point 3 of section 2.1.3 be dropped, and possibly in > its place some text to advise that the server should verify that the > sender is permitted to modify the roster, otherwise the appropriate > auth error be bounced. > > Note that I personally wouldn't like wording suggesting that the > server must check the roster is actually the sender's - for example > an > implementation might choose to allow a trusted local component to > modify users' rosters using roster sets. > > Entirely and whole-heartedly agreed. Dave. -- Dave Cridland - mailto:dave@cridland.net - xmpp:dwd@dave.cridland.net - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ - http://dave.cridland.net/ Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade From dave@cridland.net Fri Jun 26 02:14:12 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65DA13A68AF for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 02:14:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.461 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.461 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.138, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TzDAqLOCXPQY for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 02:14:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from peirce.dave.cridland.net (peirce.dave.cridland.net [217.155.137.61]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 058393A6922 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 02:13:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from puncture ((unknown) [217.155.137.60]) by peirce.dave.cridland.net (submission) via TCP with ESMTPA id ; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:07:18 +0100 X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: NORDNS References: <4A43AFF1.6030609@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: <4A43AFF1.6030609@stpeter.im> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <4558.1246007234.999069@puncture> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:07:14 +0100 From: Dave Cridland To: Peter Saint-Andre , XMPP Working Group Content-Type: text/plain; delsp="yes"; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" Subject: Re: [xmpp] what goes where? X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:14:12 -0000 On Thu Jun 25 18:12:17 2009, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > 1. Do people find this division useful? > > Yes. > 2. Would it be better or worse to combine this material into one > large > specification? > > Worse, but mostly for the psychological impact of dealing with such a huge document. > 3. Would some other division be even more useful? For example, I > have > long toyed with the following: > > Gah. I'd agree that there isn't actually a clean split between -CORE and -IM, in as much as -CORE describes stanzas that we aren't, yet, told how to route and process, but I don't really worry about this much. In any practical deployment of XMPP, people are going to be using both XMPP-CORE and XMPP-IM anyway, and working too much on how the specifications should be split or combined is a lot of effort when really, they're going to be read together anyway. At the moment, however, I don't have to think about which spec to look something up in, and I'd be happy to keep things that way. Dave. -- Dave Cridland - mailto:dave@cridland.net - xmpp:dwd@dave.cridland.net - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ - http://dave.cridland.net/ Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade From remko.troncon@gmail.com Fri Jun 26 03:03:16 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B06D63A68ED for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:03:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.676 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.676 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Reqqs4qxxFb2 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:03:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f213.google.com (mail-fx0-f213.google.com [209.85.220.213]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B05BD3A6855 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:03:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by fxm9 with SMTP id 9so1991526fxm.37 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:01:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type; bh=sg+tGaGPd1ERyywfXZZziMqGbPHaJ26pYn/DNXcwtFg=; b=oXfB0IL0VrPNxwvCCeoMHOABvm52Ccf4B7EcoP/D6onI8l9db5Hovox95iBmRtI6W2 YSDtIMdkksWjn3JhRbLZOydVWMWFXNT8rdZzXQluoAxXtGW6qDMVY2bj/kHbxkINYkl5 OCAx78ua6QVnJyVY29Pfzrs9xxKka3uiSNnA0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=ktUAUo8zdmFQVVhi176sEdTMcqnTV2llgq94Sqxm5Cb4BbIp4fglellpwL3/Xroaig VDVadsGKnNqvmRIGJ1x4n23fdKxMeOmRnP/BHEfRBqQ36PzZ2tgiZ5KOptKVebKiq3xu SmUFza+mduDHITq7kNc9UBc1dRF8JmCzJymzg= MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: remko.troncon@gmail.com Received: by 10.103.173.5 with SMTP id a5mr2144392mup.15.1246009267595; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 02:41:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4A43AFF1.6030609@stpeter.im> References: <4A43AFF1.6030609@stpeter.im> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:41:07 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: ebadf44c99fa0d10 Message-ID: <133fd4c60906260241o64327f6dwf422d30becd38778@mail.gmail.com> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Remko_Tron=C3=A7on?= To: Peter Saint-Andre Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016364177cfc82d1d046d3d2340 Cc: xmpp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [xmpp] what goes where? X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:13:12 -0000 --0016364177cfc82d1d046d3d2340 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > I have a few questions: > I always found the division of the specs pretty odd because of what Dave mentioned, that the two specs depend on each other (i.e. 3920 talks about things only introduced in 3921). I'm not sure how useful the split is from a technical point of view, since all XMPP implementations implement both specs anyway (and I'm not sure how an implementation of 3920 looks like without 3921, exactly because of its dependency). I do agree that collapsing them would generate too big of a spec to psychologically handle. I guess I would have felt more comfortable if the split was done more in a way that would make both specs clearly separated, and make 3920 a real standalone thing (and would feel even more comfortable if there were actually real life use cases of 3920 without 3921). But on the other hand, I'm not feeling so strong about it that I would invest Peter's valuable time in it ;-) cheers, Remko --0016364177cfc82d1d046d3d2340 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I have a few questions:

I always found the division of the specs pretty odd = because of what Dave mentioned, that the two specs depend on each other (i.= e. 3920 talks about things only introduced in 3921). I'm not sure how u= seful the split is from a technical point of view, since all XMPP implement= ations implement both specs anyway (and I'm not sure how an implementat= ion of 3920 looks like without 3921, exactly because of its dependency).=C2= =A0 I do agree that collapsing them would generate too big of a spec to psy= chologically handle.

I guess I would have felt more comfortable if the split was done more i= n a way that would make both specs clearly separated, and make 3920 a real = standalone thing (and would feel even more comfortable if there were actual= ly real life use cases of 3920 without 3921). But on the other hand, I'= m not feeling so strong about it that I would invest Peter's valuable t= ime in it ;-)

cheers,
Remko
--0016364177cfc82d1d046d3d2340-- From remko.troncon@gmail.com Fri Jun 26 03:58:02 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7018C3A6A4A for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:58:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.563 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.563 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.113, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id joq+mKEQROBY for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:58:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f213.google.com (mail-bw0-f213.google.com [209.85.218.213]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A3373A6855 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:58:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bwz9 with SMTP id 9so1942683bwz.37 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:56:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type; bh=oOMatGBt2WwIUVNCcprMbQIlyYZQOx8et+9Ecl0e+2M=; b=POE0PLaxapK5airRYPK/uHpm8DyD1S/7U2QmL7bfCs/9Gd3z9x2me/MToIh2BKyp6f aPUc2211ePAdhYZBi9FWMLd04h4jVpIxUB8PCsBeswqXYQfhFRKoAdmmQbs2CS1SFG3K vd6Jx0eg11b6v6OP66laCrm+/ZXSSsKUqLFmc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=YCAu6/Q1dGodhfvyuywtO2MXt4LNSnIr3kpzfmYXfy/nGVunM1SvGcOsMLnVK2ty2B dlynKYfOsMoSnvpw1W8ECKwxdAJIIN5+9VgXqzyDP536PUDZBiTrVmThLgcQ9fThrU8f RgoQVrdyuWmVwthrkAZ7VY8iKmr249GH17fS0= MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: remko.troncon@gmail.com Received: by 10.103.174.16 with SMTP id b16mr2192952mup.28.1246013772574; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:56:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4db9cacb0906251854oc277f6g1340e9a921ab34@mail.gmail.com> References: <4db9cacb0906251854oc277f6g1340e9a921ab34@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:56:12 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 1cb9ee8bcc54ed2e Message-ID: <133fd4c60906260356r46fee3acn89b877ef26177ba2@mail.gmail.com> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Remko_Tron=C3=A7on?= To: Matthew Wild Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e65875304caf25046d3e3088 Cc: xmpp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [xmpp] Routing of IQs to full JIDs - special cases? X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:58:02 -0000 --0016e65875304caf25046d3e3088 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > I look forward to hearing the opinion of others on this, > +1 for me. cheers, Remko --0016e65875304caf25046d3e3088 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I look forward to hearing the opinion of others on this,

+1 for me.

cheers,
Remko
--0016e65875304caf25046d3e3088-- From k.i.smith@gmail.com Fri Jun 26 03:58:18 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A319A3A6A99 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:58:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.864 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.864 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.114, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZLtps9h+m8sV for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:58:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-fx0-f213.google.com (mail-fx0-f213.google.com [209.85.220.213]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2C1A3A6855 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:58:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by fxm9 with SMTP id 9so2018616fxm.37 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:57:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:reply-to:received :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3HkrhfoQmxWj6U5pGOALRhnkfcchRGOeiLfZrCRd1ns=; b=xwjTS7BThQfkfseAVuD27FAmi4DRGKrSJ7q48MtNGfREycCRprwgcjUBZURaBSjIz6 kLAWvdqlXwT3xz3NZZpTbXe5FI2GH3m4+SAdgmpsXIobUdqWsENUz1KT7f3c7lC4liu8 20N0g8ypmKDN2s02TovuOWjMNRpJJQPv0whrI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=T9+0jEk4VZx5lTudJsHVsBZPC6CuG3h2w5MVEE0JD9I7XQY9AUKbDuUAATiSB4oxmN oFzGhNFqvlfujpR1cAhdE+ZDOcEwS587E9XIHToL2SvQRyA02TkkF4d9n/fqjxnx3vxA N6WIExKY30ama2Fwwoj9rSOSoUqAeLkODJL1A= MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: k.i.smith@gmail.com Received: by 10.223.105.139 with SMTP id t11mr2923793fao.37.1246013837981; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:57:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4db9cacb0906251854oc277f6g1340e9a921ab34@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:57:17 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: fc96ddd156218f00 Message-ID: From: Kevin Smith To: XMPP Standards Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xmpp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [xmpp] Routing of IQs to full JIDs - special cases? X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: kevin@kismith.co.uk List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:03:36 -0000 Sorry about this, I'm having huge trouble with my incompetence^wmail client today. This mail was meant for the xmpp wg list, not standards@: On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Kevin Smith wrote: > On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 2:54 AM, Matthew Wild wrote: >> I look forward to hearing the opinion of others on this, > Sounds right to me. > > /K > From k.i.smith@gmail.com Fri Jun 26 03:56:15 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 279093A6918 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:56:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.977 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FbNPBs5EbF-4 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:56:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f213.google.com (mail-bw0-f213.google.com [209.85.218.213]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06F043A6A75 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:56:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bwz9 with SMTP id 9so1942074bwz.37 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:55:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:reply-to:received :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HE11znF2g+z3QY++dlqqx4ufpO5MqAEzgylvRjLZDt4=; b=ctX6lM8zM7869xpw4HbWFySQpeM8Ohn5Lh2zldHYLaiaxgMbbZ2Dy6RG546QQIRlAe /D1/2do+WCtxHeTDrqaamOjUbBj0FMegHYeiyTwjUDIxSFXKkpwoDuPKtRV/MaiH5FAS XYqifTxW9FYwUDkQI18d0EnHZF+3SbPzg1jwk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=UPdBz4Sqy1U+cALl1J4EZL4GJZD7wtfp1/odl0pp2CX670qkXt3EzRPcVgm+eYm6Pc XO7qC+/9InfXS+S0bo2eGGNQMV5K2ZR0AIxK162dcUVtzSUKm3zdmwWzhUMpmkfVxUF1 tOUghPlscEkVA3uZHh+AL+mxkM2Gr6SPoOOlg= MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: k.i.smith@gmail.com Received: by 10.223.105.9 with SMTP id r9mr2896977fao.66.1246013702249; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:55:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <133fd4c60906260241o64327f6dwf422d30becd38778@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A43AFF1.6030609@stpeter.im> <133fd4c60906260241o64327f6dwf422d30becd38778@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:55:02 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 9c8501257f5d3b93 Message-ID: From: Kevin Smith To: xmpp@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [xmpp] what goes where? X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: kevin@kismith.co.uk List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:27:36 -0000 I've never understood the split between the two beyond the need not to have a huge spec, but it's never caused me any hardship either so I see no need to spend time changing it. /K From melo@simplicidade.org Fri Jun 26 04:40:21 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ADD43A68ED for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 04:40:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.077 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.077 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O5GVhMvhdOhC for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 04:40:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from speed.simplicidade.org (d001.h.gncd.net [193.227.238.37]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E2E923A67A6 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 04:40:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 22914 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2009 09:51:52 -0000 Received: from bl5-95-166.dsl.telepac.pt (HELO [192.168.0.201]) (82.154.95.166) (smtp-auth username melo@simplicidade.org, mechanism cram-md5) by speed.simplicidade.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPSA; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:51:52 +0100 From: Pedro Melo To: xmpp@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <4A43AFF1.6030609@stpeter.im> References: <4A43AFF1.6030609@stpeter.im> Message-Id: <822A210C-C92E-4173-930E-1FA6D84A3611@simplicidade.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v928.1) Jabber-Id: melo@simplicidade.org Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:51:40 +0100 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.928.1) Subject: Re: [xmpp] what goes where? X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:40:21 -0000 Hi, On Jun 25, 2009, at 6:12 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > The division between "core" and "im/pres" (RFC 3920 and RFC 3921) > reflected a preference expressed by Pete Resnick, co-chair of the > original XMPP WG (2002-2004). I have a few questions: > > 1. Do people find this division useful? Yes. > 2. Would it be better or worse to combine this material into one large > specification? No. > 3. Would some other division be even more useful? For example, I have > long toyed with the following: As parts of the spec become obsolete or no longer recommended, it might make sense to pull those outside the RFC and into XEP's, but right now, I don't see any parts of the current spec that would qualify. And as Alexey pointed out, keeping the same structure as rfc392{0,1} is very usefull for diff'ing. Best regards, -- Pedro Melo Blog: http://www.simplicidade.org/notes/ XMPP ID: melo@simplicidade.org Use XMPP! From melo@simplicidade.org Fri Jun 26 04:59:13 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C1FA3A6B11 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 04:59:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.264 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.264 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.186, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SNHoI5YZYBtF for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 04:59:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from speed.simplicidade.org (d001.h.gncd.net [193.227.238.37]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1C7BB3A6AE2 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 04:58:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 26723 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2009 11:58:17 -0000 Received: from bl5-95-166.dsl.telepac.pt (HELO [192.168.0.201]) (82.154.95.166) (smtp-auth username melo@simplicidade.org, mechanism cram-md5) by speed.simplicidade.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPSA; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:58:17 +0100 From: Pedro Melo To: xmpp@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <4db9cacb0906251854oc277f6g1340e9a921ab34@mail.gmail.com> References: <4db9cacb0906251854oc277f6g1340e9a921ab34@mail.gmail.com> Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v928.1) Jabber-Id: melo@simplicidade.org Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:58:06 +0100 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.928.1) Subject: Re: [xmpp] Routing of IQs to full JIDs - special cases? X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:59:13 -0000 Hi, On Jun 26, 2009, at 2:54 AM, Matthew Wild wrote: > I don't like this special-casing of roster sets. For example it makes > no sense to ignore the 'to' attribute if the stanza came from an s2s > connection. What to do then? If the protection is to prevent users > modifying others' rosters then I believe the protection to be in the > wrong place. A server needs to verify that the sender is authorised to > perform the action in any case, and reply appropriately if not. > > I propose that point 3 of section 2.1.3 be dropped, and possibly in > its place some text to advise that the server should verify that the > sender is permitted to modify the roster, otherwise the appropriate > auth error be bounced. +1. Special cases should be avoided as much as possible. Best regards, -- Pedro Melo Blog: http://www.simplicidade.org/notes/ XMPP ID: melo@simplicidade.org Use XMPP! From stpeter@stpeter.im Fri Jun 26 08:41:22 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 132983A6B13 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:41:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.3 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.072, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xtsb9uw+aqww for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:41:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 311843A6922 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:41:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-64-101-72-227.cisco.com (dhcp-64-101-72-227.cisco.com [64.101.72.227]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BA6D44007B; Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:06:06 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4A44E14C.9020005@stpeter.im> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:55:08 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Macintosh/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matthew Wild References: <4db9cacb0906251854oc277f6g1340e9a921ab34@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4db9cacb0906251854oc277f6g1340e9a921ab34@mail.gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xmpp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [xmpp] Routing of IQs to full JIDs - special cases? X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:41:22 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 6/25/09 7:54 PM, Matthew Wild wrote: > Hi all, > > I promised Peter to post this issue here for discussion, so here we go. > > The other day it was brought to my attention that RFC3921bis has this > to say about roster sets in 2.1.3: > > 3. The server MUST ignore any 'to' address specified on the IQ > > This conflicts with the server's duty to route IQs to full JIDs to > connected clients or remote servers, for example RFC3920bis section > 11.2.3.3: > > If the JID contained in the 'to' attribute is of the form > and there is a connected resource that exactly > matches the full JID, the server SHOULD deliver the stanza to that > connected resource. It's not clear to me how a client would handle a roster set from another resource (client-to-client roster management?). But in general I agree that it would be good to avoid special-casing. > I don't like this special-casing of roster sets. For example it makes > no sense to ignore the 'to' attribute if the stanza came from an s2s > connection. If all servers follow RFC 3920, that would not happen. But then you're depending on remote servers to do the right thing, which they might not do... > What to do then? If the protection is to prevent users > modifying others' rosters then I believe the protection to be in the > wrong place. A server needs to verify that the sender is authorised to > perform the action in any case, and reply appropriately if not. Right. > I propose that point 3 of section 2.1.3 be dropped, and possibly in > its place some text to advise that the server should verify that the > sender is permitted to modify the roster, otherwise the appropriate > auth error be bounced. +1. > Note that I personally wouldn't like wording suggesting that the > server must check the roster is actually the sender's - for example an > implementation might choose to allow a trusted local component to > modify users' rosters using roster sets. I think that would be a smart default, in the absence of a protocol that defines access controls over rosters. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkpE4UwACgkQNL8k5A2w/vze7QCg7RuLOs0JbbI6ho9JxC7vOXCX rZUAoJyO0Ykipbm+F2NgBmAuwTRo7rnc =x8/W -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From stpeter@stpeter.im Mon Jun 29 19:35:53 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 309593A6979 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:35:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.468 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.468 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.132, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qRhwNFcxL4UY for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:35:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EF2C3A683B for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:35:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from squire.local (ip-216-17-182-27.rev.frii.com [216.17.182.27]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C5DFB4007B; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:36:12 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4A497A1B.6020701@stpeter.im> Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:36:11 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Macintosh/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sean Turner References: <4A2D0C96.4070809@ieca.com> In-Reply-To: <4A2D0C96.4070809@ieca.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xmpp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [xmpp] Proposed WG Item: End-to-End Encryption Requirements X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 02:35:53 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 6/8/09 7:05 AM, Sean Turner wrote: > The following ID has been proposed as WG item to aid the WG by > enumerating the requirements for End-to-End Encryption and is aimed at > completing our 3rd milestone in December 2010: > > Title : Requirements for End-to-End Encryption in the > Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) > Author(s) : P. Saint-Andre > Filename : draft-saintandre-xmpp-e2e-requirements-00.txt > Pages : 7 > Date : 2009-06-05 > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-xmpp-e2e-requirements-00.txt A new version is available, which now includes the threat analysis from draft-meyer-xmpp-e2e-encryption-01 (which has been revved to -02). http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-xmpp-e2e-requirements-01.txt > Please indicate whether or not you believe this is a good place start. I think so, but I'm biased. :) > Note: if you indicate it is not, please provide rationale and alternatives. > > spt > co-chair xmpp wg Thanks. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkpJehsACgkQNL8k5A2w/vxCnACfQQBaVHtt/jDtJena3qrcZG1h qR0An1J4OjCxy3lh/NurT7raq253CrhY =k2tT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From stpeter@stpeter.im Mon Jun 29 19:37:01 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07E0B3A6979 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:37:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.482 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.482 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.116, BAYES_00=-2.599, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4hlte5BHlUoK for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:36:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCB1A3A683B for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:36:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from squire.local (ip-216-17-182-27.rev.frii.com [216.17.182.27]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8DF9C4007B for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:37:20 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4A497A5F.30609@stpeter.im> Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:37:19 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Macintosh/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: xmpp@ietf.org X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [xmpp] [Fwd: I-D Action:draft-saintandre-xmpp-e2e-requirements-01.txt] X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 02:37:01 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 FYI. The SVN diff is here: http://svn.xmpp.org:18080/browse/XMPP/trunk/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-xmpp-e2e-requirements-01.xml?%40diffMode=u&%40diffWrap=s&r1=3278&r2=3289&u=3&ignore=&k= /psa - -------- Original Message -------- Subject: I-D Action:draft-saintandre-xmpp-e2e-requirements-01.txt Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:30:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Requirements for End-to-End Encryption in the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) Author(s) : P. Saint-Andre Filename : draft-saintandre-xmpp-e2e-requirements-01.txt Pages : 9 Date : 2009-06-29 This document describes requirements for end-to-end encryption in the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-xmpp-e2e-requirements-01.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkpJel8ACgkQNL8k5A2w/vxEmQCg9lNAuCAwCX+wTOi6g/cozj6l JCEAn31PAmVQI8lu2WZLOKiJ+uI85ah+ =pdYN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From stpeter@stpeter.im Mon Jun 29 19:37:52 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: xmpp@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AC233A683B for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:37:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.493 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.493 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.105, BAYES_00=-2.599, WEIRD_PORT=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JlcdRvPn5qn6 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:37:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEA833A6831 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:37:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from squire.local (ip-216-17-182-27.rev.frii.com [216.17.182.27]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9DA2F4007B for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:38:12 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4A497A93.1090904@stpeter.im> Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:38:11 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Macintosh/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: xmpp@ietf.org X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [xmpp] [Fwd: I-D Action:draft-meyer-xmpp-e2e-encryption-02.txt] X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 02:37:52 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 FYI. The SVN diff is here: http://svn.xmpp.org:18080/browse/XMPP/trunk/internet-drafts/draft-meyer-xmpp-e2e-encryption-02.xml?%40diffMode=u&%40diffWrap=s&r1=3279&r2=3290&u=3&ignore=&k= /psa - -------- Original Message -------- Subject: I-D Action:draft-meyer-xmpp-e2e-encryption-02.txt Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:30:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : XTLS: End-to-End Encryption for the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) Using Transport Layer Security (TLS) Author(s) : D. Meyer, P. Saint-Andre Filename : draft-meyer-xmpp-e2e-encryption-02.txt Pages : 23 Date : 2009-06-29 This document specifies "XTLS", a protocol for end-to-end encryption of Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) traffic. XTLS is an application-level usage of Transport Layer Security (TLS) that is set up using the XMPP Jingle extension for session negotiation and transported using any streaming transport as the data delivery mechanism. Thus XTLS treats the end-to-end exchange of XML stanzas as a virtual transport and uses TLS to secure that transport, enabling XMPP entities to communicate in a way that is designed to ensure the confidentiality and integrity XML stanzas. The protocol can be used for secure end-to-end messaging as well as other XMPP applications, such as file transfer. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-meyer-xmpp-e2e-encryption-02.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkpJepMACgkQNL8k5A2w/vz06gCeLayRU8oMIc7VZj03jAsnmmi0 +yQAnR8yhZX8idbqK5wF2RxcN7scIBW+ =ip9V -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----