From stpeter@stpeter.im Sun Jul 5 14:26:18 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 5FCD93A69DF for ; Sun, 5 Jul 2009 14:26:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.503 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.503 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.096, 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 jdip8YKE-iys for ; Sun, 5 Jul 2009 14:26:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AE813A693F for ; Sun, 5 Jul 2009 14:26:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from squire.local (dsl-251-203.dynamic-dsl.frii.net [216.17.251.203]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D638540C29 for ; Sun, 5 Jul 2009 15:26:39 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4A511A8E.8040505@stpeter.im> Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:26:38 -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-hartke-xmpp-stupid-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: Sun, 05 Jul 2009 21:26:18 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I just saw this come across the InterWebs. It has "xmpp" in the name so I figured it might be of interest here... /psa - -------- Original Message -------- Subject: I-D Action:draft-hartke-xmpp-stupid-00.txt Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 14:00:02 -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 : STUN/TURN using PHP in Despair Author(s) : K. Hartke, C. Bormann Filename : draft-hartke-xmpp-stupid-00.txt Pages : 17 Date : 2009-07-05 NAT (Network Address Translator) Traversal may require TURN (Traversal Using Relays around NAT) functionality in certain cases that are not unlikely to occur. There is little incentive to deploy TURN servers, except by those who need them -- who may not be in a position to deploy a new protocol on an Internet-connected node, in particular not one with deployment requirements as high as those of TURN. "STUN/TURN using PHP in Despair" is a highly deployable protocol for obtaining TURN-like functionality, while also providing the most important function of STUN. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hartke-xmpp-stupid-00.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 iEYEARECAAYFAkpRGo4ACgkQNL8k5A2w/vxnhACfXlS6NoDTF5JzREPU0gVW+mOa rHcAoJmVROibS/ugfEPGhXBZpYarJf0O =cuTY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From trac@tools.ietf.org Mon Jul 6 15:40:53 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 5336628C2F7 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 15:40:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.587 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.587 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.013, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, 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 yECJvrkiEKJ6 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 15:40:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1:214:22ff:fe1f:1e54]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6F5F28C2B6 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 15:40:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MNws9-0002mg-HT; Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:41:17 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "xmpp issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.11.1 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.11.1, by Edgewall Software To: stpeter@stpeter.im X-Trac-Project: xmpp Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 22:41:17 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/xmpp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/xmpp/trac/ticket/1 Message-ID: <057.6b3002661f874ecf6ea1638cffa6a05b@tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 1 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: stpeter@stpeter.im, xmpp@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac@tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 09:20:09 -0700 Cc: xmpp@ietf.org Subject: [xmpp] #1: mention SCTP as alternative transport? X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Reply-To: trac@localhost.amsl.com List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 22:40:53 -0000 #1: mention SCTP as alternative transport? -----------------------------------+---------------------------------------- Reporter: stpeter@stpeter.im | Owner: Peter Saint-Andre Type: enhancement | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: milestone1 Component: 3920bis | Version: Severity: Submitted WG Document | Keywords: -----------------------------------+---------------------------------------- RFC 3920 defines a binding to TCP only. Does it make sense to mention SCTP (RFC 4960) in 3920bis as a possible alternative binding? -- Ticket URL: xmpp From trac@tools.ietf.org Mon Jul 6 15:46:32 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 4010528C2F7 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 15:46:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.587 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.587 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.013, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, 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 bKemDkRkj8dX for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 15:46:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1:214:22ff:fe1f:1e54]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D113628C41A for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 15:46:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MNwxc-0006hB-Qv; Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:46:56 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "xmpp issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.11.1 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.11.1, by Edgewall Software To: stpeter@stpeter.im X-Trac-Project: xmpp Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 22:46:56 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/xmpp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/xmpp/trac/ticket/2 Message-ID: <057.931cf056b6018d70611b93750f84308d@tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 2 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: stpeter@stpeter.im, xmpp@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac@tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 09:20:09 -0700 Cc: xmpp@ietf.org Subject: [xmpp] #2: split TLS cipher recommendations into separate spec? X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Reply-To: trac@localhost.amsl.com List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 22:46:32 -0000 #2: split TLS cipher recommendations into separate spec? --------------------------------+------------------------------------------- Reporter: stpeter@stpeter.im | Owner: Type: defect | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: milestone1 Component: 3920bis | Version: Severity: Active WG Document | Keywords: --------------------------------+------------------------------------------- Recommended TLS ciphers might change with TLS versions, the results of security research, etc. Rather than "hardcoding" this information in the core XMPP specification, would it be preferable to move this information into a separate specification that can be updated more frequently? See also http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/security/2009-January/000612.html -- Ticket URL: xmpp From trac@tools.ietf.org Mon Jul 6 15:52:14 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 DAD763A6D44 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 15:52:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.588 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.012, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, 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 FOvciBFj+3+3 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 15:52:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1:214:22ff:fe1f:1e54]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 024D73A6DC9 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 15:52:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MNx39-0006y4-0c; Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:52:39 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "xmpp issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.11.1 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.11.1, by Edgewall Software To: stpeter@stpeter.im X-Trac-Project: xmpp Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 22:52:38 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/xmpp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/xmpp/trac/ticket/3 Message-ID: <057.68667927e0bb839c72dd253854f8adee@tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 3 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: stpeter@stpeter.im, xmpp@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac@tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 09:20:09 -0700 Cc: xmpp@ietf.org Subject: [xmpp] #3: whitespace pings are in fact keepalives X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Reply-To: trac@localhost.amsl.com List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 22:52:14 -0000 #3: whitespace pings are in fact keepalives --------------------------------+------------------------------------------- Reporter: stpeter@stpeter.im | Owner: Type: defect | Status: new Priority: trivial | Milestone: milestone1 Component: 3920bis | Version: Severity: Active WG Document | Keywords: --------------------------------+------------------------------------------- It has been pointed out that the so-called "whitespace pings" mentioned in Section 5.7.3 of draft-ietf-xmpp-3920bis-00 are in fact keepalives rather than pings (since no "pong" is possible). This terminology needs to be clarified. Reference: http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2009-June/022114.html -- Ticket URL: xmpp From trac@tools.ietf.org Mon Jul 6 15:58:27 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 0A27828C2F7 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 15:58:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.588 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.012, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, 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 yISjwKurBdob for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 15:58:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zinfandel.tools.ietf.org (zinfandel.tools.ietf.org [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1:214:22ff:fe1f:1e54]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 249C83A6DAA for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 15:58:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=zinfandel.tools.ietf.org) by zinfandel.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MNx97-0007Gz-Oy; Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:58:49 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "xmpp issue tracker" X-Trac-Version: 0.11.1 Precedence: bulk Auto-Submitted: auto-generated X-Mailer: Trac 0.11.1, by Edgewall Software To: stpeter@stpeter.im X-Trac-Project: xmpp Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 22:58:49 -0000 X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/xmpp/ X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/xmpp/trac/ticket/4 Message-ID: <057.d904165abfba5e11d86da30e43e75dd8@tools.ietf.org> X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 4 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: stpeter@stpeter.im, xmpp@ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac@tools.ietf.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zinfandel.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 09:20:09 -0700 Cc: xmpp@ietf.org Subject: [xmpp] #4: clarify error handling for unidirectional streams X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Reply-To: trac@localhost.amsl.com List-Id: XMPP Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 22:58:27 -0000 #4: clarify error handling for unidirectional streams --------------------------------+------------------------------------------- Reporter: stpeter@stpeter.im | Owner: Type: defect | Status: new Priority: minor | Milestone: milestone1 Component: 3920bis | Version: Severity: Active WG Document | Keywords: --------------------------------+------------------------------------------- When two XML streams are used (one in each direction) rather than using a single bidirectional stream, stanza errors triggered by stanzas sent over the outbound stream are returned on the inbound stream (since they are inbound stanzas), whereas stream errors related to the outbound stream are returned on the outbound stream (since they are not inbound stanzas but strictly related to the outbound stream itself). This needs to be clarified. Reference: http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2009-June/022112.html -- Ticket URL: xmpp From stpeter@stpeter.im Tue Jul 7 11:42:50 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 6F0823A67B6 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 11:42:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.329 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.329 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.030, 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 a5fuuKfg1wXN for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 11:42:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8151C3A659C for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 11:42:48 -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 39FC84007B; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 12:42:20 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4A53970B.4050402@stpeter.im> Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:42:19 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Macintosh/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?SmnFmcOtIFrDoXJldsO6Y2t5?= References: <057.931cf056b6018d70611b93750f84308d@tools.ietf.org> 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: 8bit Cc: xmpp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [xmpp] #2: split TLS cipher recommendations into separate spec? 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, 07 Jul 2009 18:42:50 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 7/7/09 12:39 PM, Jiří Zárevúcky wrote: > 2009/7/7 xmpp issue tracker : >> #2: split TLS cipher recommendations into separate spec? >> --------------------------------+------------------------------------------- >> > > Perhaps it would be nice to have a separate specification for the > exact requirements, but I'm skeptical about real-life value of any > such definitions. Everyone (perhaps except of some embedded platforms, > but that's not really my area) will use abstract TLS libraries anyway. > > I believe an ordinary (and sane) programmer will certainly not bother > with TLS implementation or anything concerning it. You're probably right... > btw, is it OK to respond to the tickets on this list instead of > commenting them directly? Sure. Indeed I prefer it. I just figured I'd test the issue tracker since that's what the IETF Tools Team has given us. :) 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 iEYEARECAAYFAkpTlwsACgkQNL8k5A2w/vzh8wCfeDmiXVKMmVgsWI7KbVgB19/B diQAnjeC7K6lYoWPzgXqC+ryr0ZQHqpM =A3MF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From zarevucky.jiri@gmail.com Tue Jul 7 11:50:19 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 CD1753A659C for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 11:50:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.149 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, 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 qYmsZTHAfF7U for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 11:50:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ew0-f213.google.com (mail-ew0-f213.google.com [209.85.219.213]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DA703A6EFD for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 11:48:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ewy9 with SMTP id 9so1005845ewy.4 for ; Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:47:19 -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=B4vIXQp2sECs0hvzA69b/Mg/zf7CdHnhbL9bv0YdF78=; b=BtQwn67eyJ99mAXWn+xeYaDsfuxd1m59pot+Fkei8/+MU4DaqUPR4pCuxj2AFSLVxw O1diHfTSqK1KOgkFREYAWYMz5yr9TiffPepqIGpGgUstQVhvi7BYPTquHtXptdE4n31s DdNYzMpmouKKbBveKkoAWtd5Wd248QLqyFrBY= 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=fUP8jgJQawrx9rga0kmr3Dd9Ap/Lj1lXjGBrU2nhUQ5HxY0osI8saiC3h2SuUig1YG M95V/xrhW9QxJds4JWCAohQQYh+nTjOV44LgX9cLLLlEn1nsUl6Q12iMrN5QFfPf+hnc v7U6R4Vu45VA4rqKgDVKDsOWwN0Grpzt8kVoM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.210.127.10 with SMTP id z10mr4343709ebc.53.1246991967354; Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:39:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <057.931cf056b6018d70611b93750f84308d@tools.ietf.org> References: <057.931cf056b6018d70611b93750f84308d@tools.ietf.org> Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 20:39:27 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?SmnFmcOtIFrDoXJldsO6Y2t5?= To: xmpp@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [xmpp] #2: split TLS cipher recommendations into separate spec? 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, 07 Jul 2009 18:50:19 -0000 2009/7/7 xmpp issue tracker : > #2: split TLS cipher recommendations into separate spec? > --------------------------------+------------------------------------------- > Perhaps it would be nice to have a separate specification for the exact requirements, but I'm skeptical about real-life value of any such definitions. Everyone (perhaps except of some embedded platforms, but that's not really my area) will use abstract TLS libraries anyway. I believe an ordinary (and sane) programmer will certainly not bother with TLS implementation or anything concerning it. btw, is it OK to respond to the tickets on this list instead of commenting them directly? From fippo@mail.symlynx.com Thu Jul 9 12:50:49 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 6BF5028C249 for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 12:50:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.649 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_47=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 TUwxjUcIRgeZ for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 12:50:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lectern.tobij.de (lectern.tobij.de [62.75.216.40]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48FF63A6BEC for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 12:50:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.21] (p579DD22F.dip.t-dialin.net [87.157.210.47]) (authenticated bits=0) by lectern.tobij.de (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id n69JpDfH029226 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 21:51:13 +0200 Message-ID: <4A564A30.1040204@mail.symlynx.com> Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:51:12 +0200 From: Philipp Hancke User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: xmpp@ietf.org References: <4be2be550907090820h245d149ct7c0362c1d312dcce@mail.gmail.com> <4A561E1E.5090902@goodadvice.pages.de> <4A5620F3.40203@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: <4A5620F3.40203@stpeter.im> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [xmpp] [Standards] none + pending in 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, 09 Jul 2009 19:55:08 -0000 Peter Saint-Andre schrieb: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Please check the text in draft-ietf-xmpp-3921bis. If it is still > incorrect, post a message about this to the xmpp@ietf.org list. Ok. See below. > On 7/9/09 10:43 AM, Philipp Hancke wrote: >> Me Self schrieb: >>> Can someone help me interpret this line from rfc 3921 section 8.2 6) that >>> explain how the contacts server stores a subscribe message offline if it >>> cannot be delivered to the contact: >>> >>> "if not, the contact's server MUST store the subscription request offline >>> for delivery when this condition is next met; normally this is done by >>> adding a roster item for the contact to the user's roster, with a >>> state of >>> "None + Pending In"" >>> >>> How can the contacts server add anything to the users roster which >>> resides >>> on another server? >> It seems like "user" and "contact" are mixed up in the last sentence. >> That should probably have been: "normally this is done by adding a >> roster item for the USER to the CONTACTS's roster". That text is no longer present in -bis. I think rule #5 in section 3.1.3 describes the appropriate action. But... >>> If the roster item is meant to be stored in the contacts roster then that >>> brings me to my next question. How does the contacts server determine >>> if it >>> can include a roster item in response to a "roster get"? Section 9.2 >>> seems >>> to touch this: >>> >>> ""None + Pending In" = contact and user are not subscribed to each other, >>> and contact has sent user a subscription request but user has not replied >>> yet (note: contact's server SHOULD NOT push or deliver roster items in >>> this >>> state, but instead SHOULD wait until contact has approved subscription >>> request from user) " >>> >>> This is according to 9.2 from the users perspective so its talking >>> about a >>> roster item in the users roster? I dont get this section either. If the >>> "owner" of a roster with a roster item in the subscription state "None + >>> Pending in" sends a "roster get" should the owners server then hide this >>> item? If thats the interpretation then if the owner had the same item in >>> state "None" before the request was sent to the owner, that means the >>> item >>> went from visible to hidden without the owner doing anything other then >>> being offline when receiving a subscription request? >> The user had created a roster item for the contact before the contact >> subscribed the user? Hiding that item does not make sense, indeed. >> I think the intended behaviour (not modifiyng the roster) is to deliver >> the item with subscription=none and deliver the subscription request >> from the contact after the roster result (see 3.1.3 rule 5 in -bis). This relates to what is said in A1, state None+Pending In (3): | "None + Pending In" = contact and user are not subscribed to each | other, and contact has sent user a subscription request but user has | not replied yet (note: contact's server SHOULD NOT push or deliver | roster items in this state, but instead SHOULD wait until user has | approved subscription request from contact); this is reflected in the | user's roster by subscription='none' The state transition NONE => NONE+PENDING IN should not modify the roster. This would be consistent with the last sentence in 3.1.3. Instead, PENDING IN is determined by the existence of the the stored inbound subscription request (see section 3.1.3 rule #5). Hence, if there is an existing roster entry with subscription=NONE it SHOULD still be sent to the interested resource, followed by the subscription request after the roster get is complete. If there is no existing roster entry, it is not created by the state change NONE => NONE+PENDING IN. Hence no roster item is sent to a client which requests the roster, only the subscription request is delivered. I think this makes the note unnecessary. There are some consequences of that, for example in 3.3.3. If the server has stored a subscription request in 3.1.3 (state = NONE+PENDING IN), it must upon receiving a unsubscribe from the contact (state transition => NONE) delete the stored subscription request. philipp From stpeter@stpeter.im Thu Jul 9 13:32:56 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 ED13528C2E8; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 13:32:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.485 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.485 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.114, 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 KUINTrbM7zKS; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 13:32:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F142028C2E6; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 13:32:55 -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 8A50A4007B; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 14:33:21 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4A565410.9050708@stpeter.im> Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:33:20 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Macintosh/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Cullen Jennings 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 Cc: IETF AVT WG , xmpp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [xmpp] [AVT] Time change for meetings at IETF 75 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, 09 Jul 2009 20:32:57 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 7/9/09 2:11 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote: > Just as FYI ... it looks like the tuesday morning AVT meeting might get > moved to monday morning and the monday morning XMPP meeting would get > moved to tuesday morning. This swap would be done to resolve the > conflict of XMPP and the apps area meeting as many of the XMPP folks are > involved with lots of other apps stuff. Yes, XMPP doesn't know whether it's apps or RAI. :) 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 iEYEARECAAYFAkpWVBAACgkQNL8k5A2w/vyDUACeMeW9Q+2jIcKxXDXESorhelKs xZQAoOAum6H1bNBimzp/zXoj1dBpu1oO =Kwp2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From fluffy@cisco.com Thu Jul 9 13:11:29 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 03F9D28C15D; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 13:11:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.568 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.568 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.031, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 ME3l+iVeTdoy; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 13:11:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17F6E3A6CEE; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 13:11:28 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.42,375,1243814400"; d="scan'208";a="184556705" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 09 Jul 2009 20:11:56 +0000 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n69KBufm000461; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 13:11:56 -0700 Received: from [192.168.1.75] (sjc-vpn7-302.cisco.com [10.21.145.46]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n69KBJmn022176; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 20:11:56 GMT Message-Id: From: Cullen Jennings To: IETF AVT WG , xmpp@ietf.org 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, 9 Jul 2009 13:11:55 -0700 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=346; t=1247170316; x=1248034316; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fluffy@cisco.com; z=From:=20Cullen=20Jennings=20 |Subject:=20Time=20change=20for=20meetings=20at=20IETF=2075 |Sender:=20; bh=r42z83wP/wwtScGWNt3QvLhgzfmdZquZNdIi/rsvX5E=; b=sVeTIorEvr2ZwJBH0z+8G3UjymTxERXoI1Lls9CVhBjGBPz0MMDvqRZQFy 96i51hxLU8bzjcHlyQhvG1U+HWP+5r5GTOVfm3eDP6/am9uxnF1l49ueOmI0 Gb9qY9uz64BGOqLQ7UrkXkZH0RTGwcIQ1sC4xZIHMpmNrxZJSBTBk=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=fluffy@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:40:34 -0700 Subject: [xmpp] Time change for meetings at IETF 75 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, 09 Jul 2009 20:11:29 -0000 Just as FYI ... it looks like the tuesday morning AVT meeting might get moved to monday morning and the monday morning XMPP meeting would get moved to tuesday morning. This swap would be done to resolve the conflict of XMPP and the apps area meeting as many of the XMPP folks are involved with lots of other apps stuff. Cullen From stpeter@stpeter.im Fri Jul 10 14:22:50 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 D9BBC28C39D for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:22:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.197 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.198, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_47=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 rtzWnoYwADSr for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:22:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED67D3A6834 for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:22:49 -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 73DE94007B; Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:23:18 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4A57B145.4080906@stpeter.im> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:23:17 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Macintosh/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Philipp Hancke References: <4be2be550907090820h245d149ct7c0362c1d312dcce@mail.gmail.com> <4A561E1E.5090902@goodadvice.pages.de> <4A5620F3.40203@stpeter.im> <4A564A30.1040204@mail.symlynx.com> In-Reply-To: <4A564A30.1040204@mail.symlynx.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] [Standards] none + pending in 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, 10 Jul 2009 21:22:50 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 7/9/09 1:51 PM, Philipp Hancke wrote: > The state transition NONE => NONE+PENDING IN should not modify the > roster. This would be consistent with the last sentence in 3.1.3. > > Instead, PENDING IN is determined by the existence of the the stored > inbound subscription request (see section 3.1.3 rule #5). > > Hence, if there is an existing roster entry with subscription=NONE > it SHOULD still be sent to the interested resource, followed by the > subscription request after the roster get is complete. > If there is no existing roster entry, it is not created by the state > change NONE => NONE+PENDING IN. Hence no roster item is sent to a client > which requests the roster, only the subscription request is delivered. > > I think this makes the note unnecessary. > > There are some consequences of that, for example in 3.3.3. > If the server has stored a subscription request in 3.1.3 > (state = NONE+PENDING IN), it must upon receiving a unsubscribe > from the contact (state transition => NONE) delete the > stored subscription request. I think that is all correct. I shall adjust the spec accordingly. 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 iEYEARECAAYFAkpXsUUACgkQNL8k5A2w/vxDIQCbBWS7r1Q8pJitHNrDf9mEeSVM G9sAoNMbN+8GtmFrEZ7Kz+g2ET+Un6sT =wVyK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From stpeter@stpeter.im Mon Jul 13 14:33:29 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 5FCA728C5F2 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:33:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.495 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.104, 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 alAwTqoAzR-3 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:33:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46B6528C51C for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:33:28 -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 1DC594007B for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:33:21 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4A5BA820.3020303@stpeter.im> Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:33:20 -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: advice to protocols using IDNA] 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, 13 Jul 2009 21:33:29 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 As sent to the IDNAbis list... - -------- Original Message -------- Subject: advice to protocols using IDNA Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:22:54 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre To: idna-update@alvestrand.no XMPP uses IDNA2003 (see RFC 3920). We are working on revisions to our core specifications (see draft-ietf-xmpp-3920bis) and one of the sticky issues is what to do about internationalized domain names. Has the IDNAbis WG produced a succinct set of recommendations that can be followed by using protocols? That would be extremely helpful for those of us in application-land who are not versed in the ways of IDNA. Thanks! Peter _______________________________________________ Idna-update mailing list Idna-update@alvestrand.no http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkpbqCAACgkQNL8k5A2w/vwsuACgs9R0bW8pPb/CduEVcU8Dr8J0 +EEAoIwm4Fxul3ZGL75/2QIm/gvtoXVn =3qb6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From stpeter@stpeter.im Mon Jul 13 15:44:30 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 0AAEA3A6B4E for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:44:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.497 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.102, 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 3-BcunJDTUCe for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:44:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76C9828C210 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:44:10 -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 A6AF74007B for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:44:40 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4A5BB8D7.7030907@stpeter.im> Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:44:39 -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: Re: advice to protocols using IDNA] 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, 13 Jul 2009 22:44:30 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 FYI. - -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: advice to protocols using IDNA Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:37:16 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre To: Vint Cerf CC: idna-update@alvestrand.no References: Fair enough. I shall review the IDNA2008 documents before IETF 75, and ask several others in the XMPP community to do the same. Peter On 7/13/09 4:30 PM, Vint Cerf wrote: > We are hoping to converge in stockholm. It would be useful to hear > from you whether the idna2008 docs are useful to you. V > > ----- Original Message ----- From: idna-update-bounces@alvestrand.no > To: idna-update@alvestrand.no > Sent: Mon Jul 13 14:22:54 2009 Subject: > advice to protocols using IDNA > > XMPP uses IDNA2003 (see RFC 3920). We are working on revisions to our > core specifications (see draft-ietf-xmpp-3920bis) and one of the > sticky issues is what to do about internationalized domain names. Has > the IDNAbis WG produced a succinct set of recommendations that can be > followed by using protocols? That would be extremely helpful for > those of us in application-land who are not versed in the ways of > IDNA. > > Thanks! > > Peter > _______________________________________________ Idna-update mailing list Idna-update@alvestrand.no http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkpbuNcACgkQNL8k5A2w/vyA2gCcDyrbOr3O1oFiuiyg6rByLr7u quAAoKVVu+e3PVGL6WXnQp26zEnOVust =NDhU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From stpeter@stpeter.im Tue Jul 14 10:02:35 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 BABB13A6B0A for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:02:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.499 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, 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 vBrihjYP7l0o for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:02:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB97A3A6A07 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:02:34 -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 946D74007B for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:37:04 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4A5CB42F.2000506@stpeter.im> Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:37:03 -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: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-sasl-scram-02] 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, 14 Jul 2009 17:02:35 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 It seems likely that we will adopt SCRAM as mandatory-to-implement in 3920bis (since it replaces the ill-fated DIGEST-MD5), so it would be helpful for XMPP developers to provide feedback on the specification while it is in last call. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sasl-scram-02 Please post to the ietf-sasl@imc.org list if you have any comments. Thanks! /psa - -------- Original Message -------- Subject: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-sasl-scram-02 Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:17:08 -0400 From: Tom Yu To: ietf-sasl@imc.org This message commences a WG Last Call on the following Internet-Draft: Title : Salted Challenge Response (SCRAM) SASL Mechanism Author(s) : A. Menon-Sen, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-sasl-scram-02.txt Pages : 33 Date : 2009-07-08 This Last Call will expire on 03 August 2009. This document is intended for the Standards Track. Please review this document and send technical feedback to the WG mailing list, and editorial comments to the authors. - -- Tom Yu IETF SASL WG co-chair -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkpctC8ACgkQNL8k5A2w/vy2NACbB5foajF1k+9JQspHfTaogYSc 8ssAn3rNbH1npAWEHJSBYTMwQ5oQ7Roe =ocsN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From turners@ieca.com Wed Jul 15 14:31:44 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 58CD33A6927 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:31:44 -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=[AWL=0.000, 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 zFLO45sYrjIy for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:31:43 -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 3BFDA3A6C65 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:31:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 66233 invoked from network); 15 Jul 2009 21:30:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thunderfish.local) (turners@71.191.1.10 with plain) by smtp101.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Jul 2009 21:30:37 -0000 X-Yahoo-SMTP: qPTWNAeswBAtDTSn9GKlmmL3C90ke7grn_5n9To- X-YMail-OSG: PLkVXsUVM1l.tkvrwC3iAFwnGrfelxBkM1O2cQQ49gujO7cBp1rVCGtp4bzO2fPHFLO1bBOCMaJWqhyV6M68grXUS6X.FE5TZU8mSt3rdm_vc_exO2pWRD1me8iATe64.SFzm4szVZNBqdgFVvsKpAIP03oNsHa5Z0JgfytidTk4.bKxv6fSxeuoaCLAoHpzQEyCcHsThBFv_3k_SiFmLswV1FjghzJaWtuxo9iNzHVUzer8J4GQ7nsc.CFSh05WwHPxPU98cmREMTqyBlrmKkklj0dQMO33qcNj4XUVY.VH90UniQ1p6Db5QGPoYdvNNgSgP69D3Hsva5nmsWKQO9oJNg.UVjyfkg-- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 Message-ID: <4A5E4A7C.4070608@ieca.com> Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:30:36 -0400 From: Sean Turner User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Macintosh/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: XMPP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [xmpp] Agenda Topics 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: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:31:44 -0000 Joe and I are in the process of drafting the an initial agenda. Peter Saint-Andre has offered to present the issues with the WG's two work products: draft-ietf-xmpp-3921bis-00.txt draft-ietf-xmpp-3921bis-01.txt We've also received requests for time slots to present the following two drafts as proposals for new working group items: draft-saintandre-xmpp-e2e-requirements-00.txt draft-hildebrand-xmpp-tls-multiplexing-00.txt. We have also received two other request for time slots to present topics related to but not explicitly part of our charter. Are there others that wish to present at the meeting? For example, are there others that have read the two above proposed WG work items and have other IDs or ideas? If you have a topic that you would like to present to the XMPP WG, then please submit your request to Joe (Joe.Hildebrand@webex.com) or myself (turners@ieca.com) with the topic and an expected length of the presentation. spt From stpeter@stpeter.im Wed Jul 15 16:07:10 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 0AA0128C16D for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:07:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.51 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.090, 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 LgURnSMmTqUQ for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:07:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4DA53A6A56 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:07:08 -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 6E3F34007B; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:06:57 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4A5E6110.8060006@stpeter.im> Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:06:56 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Macintosh/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sean Turner References: <4A5E4A7C.4070608@ieca.com> In-Reply-To: <4A5E4A7C.4070608@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 Subject: Re: [xmpp] Agenda Topics 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: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 23:07:10 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 7/15/09 3:30 PM, Sean Turner wrote: > We've also received requests for time slots to present the following two > drafts as proposals for new working group items: > draft-saintandre-xmpp-e2e-requirements-00.txt Perhaps Dirk Meyer can talk about draft-meyer-xmpp-e2e-encryption as one possible solution addressing the e2e encryption requirements. I'd also be curious if people have ideas about other possible solutions... 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 iEYEARECAAYFAkpeYRAACgkQNL8k5A2w/vxcJQCeNXDtxWLNStnsG7WGOU9Vr5Ry nbkAoKdxdxXgIfKzVHwAF/zk6yR0gaNk =xOqM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From turners@ieca.com Wed Jul 15 16:32:13 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 681BE3A6F16 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:32:13 -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=[AWL=0.000, 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 jyJtdTo5jHOf for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:32:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp105.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com (smtp105.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com [206.190.52.174]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6F7FE3A6C66 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:32:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 4474 invoked from network); 15 Jul 2009 23:31:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thunderfish.local) (turners@71.191.1.10 with plain) by smtp105.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Jul 2009 23:31:09 -0000 X-Yahoo-SMTP: qPTWNAeswBAtDTSn9GKlmmL3C90ke7grn_5n9To- X-YMail-OSG: ilQTZTIVM1l.r7z4g_cKUq8oTxiYw6fCRFuuDHOYj3hYS_SnrmH94VZfQQGFVroVLauZ8nVHF_J1S56F_9FIVZ0bHLYDRa.sTMc8tnOZ8OaE_OEF0viI7ALPrntAWDgzQliuncwve2Rfk4iC.WoMqj0Zlxigcanhq0uSpWdzXfp6.TMQlRLsZbRiIP_SDu9xJgd.QWMTBwGboXp_uPiQxcnFZwwQ8QvHd9Z9GgBZd32574mvZIK1Z.scH.hKv5gwHMrIdToxPdCI5xtH5wDeizS..5w74gsYdoAOEHAIvKa_HHimR4A5xU31ZMyVDoP7kJZUJVbzXJnBSKcMQkkm.qLUrJhzt.bEtQ-- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 Message-ID: <4A5E66BD.50201@ieca.com> Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:31:09 -0400 From: Sean Turner User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Macintosh/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: XMPP References: <4A2D0C96.4070809@ieca.com> In-Reply-To: <4A2D0C96.4070809@ieca.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 23:32:13 -0000 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 > > > 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 There has been little traffic on the WG adoption of this as WG item. Have people read this draft (now -02)? Is it a good starting point? Are there requirements that are missing? spt From turners@ieca.com Wed Jul 15 16:43:21 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 D5C3E3A6F84 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:43:21 -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 kb7hZ8x5QVc7 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:43:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp104.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com (smtp104.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com [206.190.52.173]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E04113A6F89 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:43:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 36346 invoked from network); 15 Jul 2009 23:31:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thunderfish.local) (turners@71.191.1.10 with plain) by smtp104.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Jul 2009 23:31:34 -0000 X-Yahoo-SMTP: qPTWNAeswBAtDTSn9GKlmmL3C90ke7grn_5n9To- X-YMail-OSG: bcV9BU4VM1m7_vV9IpANJJE6PCusiRDBku_Tg6lxmeQKPmnltNZgO8fpKU4PTaQo.ABUTEAdr_Gz_pI4JMB5wRo5F0L_DTjphDRC.PUWxi10u3sTBMDVhrtAgtcnR2HMbxi6j4lX6lrOFbO.qnuTfFewX7UAm.UFLgy2gv38dU_7_0zJACa4_gxc5VeWPhf0cHQ5AX44y4uPnbH2voMxHxg3lfkORCuGUQApJMkA5gIGCo0KHVD.QOuJiiHRifC.tnEwEsSA8IEi5uZerUdRS7uRFnU3l9lPTqtTzFMYcF.5xxEN18QYKSjFmhuGT2_mqvs.OIwIudZrl4DU9LAXs1au0D00clj3zw-- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 Message-ID: <4A5E66D5.4040704@ieca.com> Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:31:33 -0400 From: Sean Turner User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Macintosh/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: XMPP References: <4A2D0C84.3010302@ieca.com> In-Reply-To: <4A2D0C84.3010302@ieca.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [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: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 23:43:21 -0000 Sean Turner wrote: > 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 There has been little traffic on the WG adoption of this as a WG work item. Have people read this draft? Is the problem statement clear or is there anything that is missing? Is the requirements list complete? spt From dmeyer@sachmittel.de Thu Jul 16 05:38:13 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 7A29F28C1BF for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 05:38:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] 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 4i0VpkVoI8xG for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 05:38:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.bitschubser.de (mail.bitschubser.de [78.47.214.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A93913A67F9 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 05:38:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phex.sachmittel.de (dmeyer.openvpn.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.217.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.bitschubser.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11EFC1021F8; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:38:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: by phex.sachmittel.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A1EFEB8366; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:38:42 +0200 (CEST) To: Peter Saint-Andre References: <4A5E4A7C.4070608@ieca.com> <4A5E6110.8060006@stpeter.im> From: Dirk Meyer Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:38:42 +0200 In-Reply-To: <4A5E6110.8060006@stpeter.im> (Peter Saint-Andre's message of "Wed\, 15 Jul 2009 17\:06\:56 -0600") Message-ID: <87r5wg4xbh.fsf@phex.sachmittel.de> Organization: Universitaet Bremen, Germany Lines: 24 User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: XMPP Subject: Re: [xmpp] Agenda Topics 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, 16 Jul 2009 12:56:49 -0000 Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 7/15/09 3:30 PM, Sean Turner wrote: > >> We've also received requests for time slots to present the following two >> drafts as proposals for new working group items: >> draft-saintandre-xmpp-e2e-requirements-00.txt > > Perhaps Dirk Meyer can talk about draft-meyer-xmpp-e2e-encryption as one > possible solution addressing the e2e encryption requirements. I'd also > be curious if people have ideas about other possible solutions... Yes, first talking about the requirements and after that about a possible solution sounds like a good idea. I also have some remarks on what we may want to change in XTLS, but maybe someone else has a completly different idea. Dirk -- Wash: This is gonna get pretty interesting. Mal: Define "interesting". Wash: Oh God, oh God, we're all gonna die? - Serenity (2005) From fippo@mail.symlynx.com Thu Jul 16 08:24:51 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 31DC33A6D52 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 08:24:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.009 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.009 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.241, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] 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 XwV28KcFeZ9W for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 08:24:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lectern.tobij.de (lectern.tobij.de [62.75.216.40]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 154B13A6A83 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 08:24:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.21] (p579DD765.dip.t-dialin.net [87.157.215.101]) (authenticated bits=0) by lectern.tobij.de (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id n6GFOvNQ017379 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:24:57 +0200 Message-ID: <4A5F4644.5040202@mail.symlynx.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:24:52 +0200 From: Philipp Hancke User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: xmpp@ietf.org References: <4A2D0C84.3010302@ieca.com> <4A5E66D5.4040704@ieca.com> In-Reply-To: <4A5E66D5.4040704@ieca.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [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: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:24:51 -0000 Sean Turner wrote: > Sean Turner wrote: >> 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 > > There has been little traffic on the WG adoption of this as a WG work > item. Have people read this draft? Is the problem statement clear or > is there anything that is missing? Is the requirements list complete? There was some discussion on the standards@xmpp.org list before that draft was written: http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2009-April/021853.html http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2009-May/021882.html The problem statement is clear. The requirements are a little too in-depth, but that is ok for a first draft. philipp From fippo@mail.symlynx.com Thu Jul 16 12:28:32 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 EF6CF3A6DD2 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:28:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.089 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.089 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.160, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] 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 Ym8P-0FZpKyS for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:28:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lectern.tobij.de (lectern.tobij.de [62.75.216.40]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EECAF3A6DCE for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:28:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.21] (p579DD765.dip.t-dialin.net [87.157.215.101]) (authenticated bits=0) by lectern.tobij.de (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id n6GJT0K2025098 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:29:03 +0200 Message-ID: <4A5F7F77.2000608@mail.symlynx.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:28:55 +0200 From: Philipp Hancke User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: xmpp@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [xmpp] presence subscriptions + desync 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, 16 Jul 2009 19:28:33 -0000 section 3.1.2 in 3921bis states: | If the contact does not approve or deny the subscription request | within some configurable amount of time, the user's server SHOULD | resend the subscription request to the contact based on an | implementation-specific algorithm This change shifts the responsibility for error detection and handling from client (rfc 3921, 8.2 step 5) to the server (smart servers!). Why was this responsiblity shifted? Actually, are there clients that implement the "old" version? Those that I tested did simply ignore the error... Resending the subscription request as proposed is hardly an option. If the contact is offline for some weeks, the user's server will try to resend for quite a number of times, without any necessicity. The main problem is IMO that the lacks a immediate acknowledgment by the contact's server. The acknowledgment is only sent after user interaction. Is that because the subscription protocol predates the concept of a "remote server"? A possible solution is to provide a preliminary acknowledgement for that request by sending an unavailable presence: This implies that the contact is technically reachable, and - if the original subscription request was tagged with an id attribute - is an cheap alternative for an iq-based request response protocol. Stop resending if you receive this ack. A similar argument applies to , for which there should be an acknowledgment as well. philipp From stpeter@stpeter.im Thu Jul 16 16:02:29 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 B78583A6DED for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:02:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.971 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.971 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.441, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.069] 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 8le0XbEmV2J8 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:02:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5A623A6B01 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:02:28 -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 628014007B; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:03:01 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4A5F3F4A.9060505@stpeter.im> Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 08:55:06 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Macintosh/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dirk Meyer References: <4A5E4A7C.4070608@ieca.com> <4A5E6110.8060006@stpeter.im> <87r5wg4xbh.fsf@phex.sachmittel.de> In-Reply-To: <87r5wg4xbh.fsf@phex.sachmittel.de> 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 Subject: Re: [xmpp] Agenda Topics 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, 16 Jul 2009 23:02:29 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 7/16/09 6:38 AM, Dirk Meyer wrote: > Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> On 7/15/09 3:30 PM, Sean Turner wrote: >> >>> We've also received requests for time slots to present the following two >>> drafts as proposals for new working group items: >>> draft-saintandre-xmpp-e2e-requirements-00.txt >> Perhaps Dirk Meyer can talk about draft-meyer-xmpp-e2e-encryption as one >> possible solution addressing the e2e encryption requirements. I'd also >> be curious if people have ideas about other possible solutions... > > Yes, first talking about the requirements and after that about a > possible solution sounds like a good idea. I also have some remarks on > what we may want to change in XTLS, but maybe someone else has a > completly different idea. Sounds good. Perhaps you could relay those thoughts to the list before the Stockholm meeting (not everyone on the list will be there, and it's always helpful to give people time to think about the issue before we discuss it in person). I have been meaning to write a little summary of XTLS, too, so I will send that to the list soon. 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 iEYEARECAAYFAkpfP0oACgkQNL8k5A2w/vyLEQCdFLN/ycpp66OvAF1AUEaYzS4p pcIAoIlo9hscmHXCRyPPx4nc1c1EZKqX =UNvm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From stpeter@stpeter.im Thu Jul 16 19:00:20 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 626F128C255 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 19:00:20 -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 MKQM8WchEF14 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 19:00:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B33F28C24A for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 19:00:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from leavealone.cisco.com (72-163-0-129.cisco.com [72.163.0.129]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 227D44007B; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 20:00:50 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4A5FDB50.2020001@stpeter.im> Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 20:00:48 -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> <4A5E66BD.50201@ieca.com> In-Reply-To: <4A5E66BD.50201@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 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: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 02:00:20 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 7/15/09 5:31 PM, Sean Turner wrote: > 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 >> >> >> 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 > > There has been little traffic on the WG adoption of this as WG item. > Have people read this draft (now -02)? Is it a good starting point? > Are there requirements that are missing? So that people can find it, in fact it's now -01... http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saintandre-xmpp-e2e-requirements-01 Perhaps I'm biased, but I think we need some kind of requirements document for end-to-end encryption, given that (1) it seems the IESG will require a solution to this problem before being able to sign off on the revisions to RFCs 3920/3921 and (2) the prior solution to broadly the same problem has not passed muster (as far as I know, there are exactly zero implementations of RFC 3923). IMHO the threat analysis and requirements in draft-saintandre-xmpp-e2e-requirements provide some framing for any work we might do here. I have heard some quibbles about some of the requirements (e.g., questions have been raised as to whether we really need perfect forward secrecy), but I think those requirements have broad consensus given that most of them were previously discussed and published in XEP-0210: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0210.html Anyway I think this provides a reasonable starting point for further discussion. But, again, I'm probably biased in the matter... 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 iEYEARECAAYFAkpf21AACgkQNL8k5A2w/vxYIwCg9SbyQuxIiC/FHNvYDQCMM/ss Ck8AoLZpvpRZ9tRT+5Jr1g+mo/KJdzqq =mmga -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From dmeyer@sachmittel.de Fri Jul 17 06:40:44 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 945283A69E3 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 06:40:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] 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 paK5GUVGP-tI for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 06:40:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.bitschubser.de (mail.bitschubser.de [78.47.214.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A3D33A68F1 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 06:40:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phex.sachmittel.de (dmeyer.openvpn.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.217.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.bitschubser.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4B48102308; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:30:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: by phex.sachmittel.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4D537E772; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:30:59 +0200 (CEST) To: Peter Saint-Andre References: <4A5E4A7C.4070608@ieca.com> <4A5E6110.8060006@stpeter.im> <87r5wg4xbh.fsf@phex.sachmittel.de> <4A5F3F4A.9060505@stpeter.im> From: Dirk Meyer Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:30:59 +0200 In-Reply-To: <4A5F3F4A.9060505@stpeter.im> (Peter Saint-Andre's message of "Thu\, 16 Jul 2009 08\:55\:06 -0600") Message-ID: <877hy7tp0s.fsf@phex.sachmittel.de> Organization: Universitaet Bremen, Germany Lines: 35 User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: XMPP Subject: Re: [xmpp] Agenda Topics 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, 17 Jul 2009 13:40:44 -0000 Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 7/16/09 6:38 AM, Dirk Meyer wrote: >> Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>> On 7/15/09 3:30 PM, Sean Turner wrote: >>> >>>> We've also received requests for time slots to present the following two >>>> drafts as proposals for new working group items: >>>> draft-saintandre-xmpp-e2e-requirements-00.txt >>> Perhaps Dirk Meyer can talk about draft-meyer-xmpp-e2e-encryption as one >>> possible solution addressing the e2e encryption requirements. I'd also >>> be curious if people have ideas about other possible solutions... >> >> Yes, first talking about the requirements and after that about a >> possible solution sounds like a good idea. I also have some remarks on >> what we may want to change in XTLS, but maybe someone else has a >> completly different idea. > > Sounds good. Perhaps you could relay those thoughts to the list before > the Stockholm meeting (not everyone on the list will be there, and it's > always helpful to give people time to think about the issue before we > discuss it in person). OK. The idea is to replace TLS-SRP and the additional method exchange by always using TLS with (self-signed) X.509 certificates and use SASL later in case one client can not verify its peer's certificate. My understanding of SCRAM is that it may not possible to use it without some modification, but there is (an expired) version of SRP used for SASL http://www.melnikov.ca/mel/Drafts/draft-burdis-cat-srp-sasl-07.txt Dirk -- perl -le '$_=(split("\"",`$^Xdoc -q japh`))[1].".";y/pj/PJ/;print' From alexey.melnikov@isode.com Fri Jul 17 07:16:47 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 4B8173A6856 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 07:16:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.505 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.505 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.094, 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 E7UPo7OXKf2T for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 07:16:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FA0E3A67E6 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 07:16:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.16.2.160] (shiny.isode.com [62.3.217.250]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id ; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:11:49 +0100 Message-ID: <4A608678.6010507@isode.com> Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:11:04 +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: Dirk Meyer References: <4A5E4A7C.4070608@ieca.com> <4A5E6110.8060006@stpeter.im> <87r5wg4xbh.fsf@phex.sachmittel.de> <4A5F3F4A.9060505@stpeter.im> <877hy7tp0s.fsf@phex.sachmittel.de> In-Reply-To: <877hy7tp0s.fsf@phex.sachmittel.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: XMPP Subject: Re: [xmpp] Agenda Topics 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, 17 Jul 2009 14:16:47 -0000 Hi Dirk, Dirk Meyer wrote: >Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > > >>Sounds good. Perhaps you could relay those thoughts to the list before >>the Stockholm meeting (not everyone on the list will be there, and it's >>always helpful to give people time to think about the issue before we >>discuss it in person). >> >> >OK. The idea is to replace TLS-SRP and the additional method exchange by >always using TLS with (self-signed) X.509 certificates and use SASL >later in case one client can not verify its peer's certificate. > >My understanding of SCRAM is that it may not possible to use it without >some modification, but there is (an expired) version of SRP used for SASL >http://www.melnikov.ca/mel/Drafts/draft-burdis-cat-srp-sasl-07.txt > > Can you clarify what would need to be changed in SCRAM in order to make it work for your purposes? From dmeyer@sachmittel.de Fri Jul 17 07:19:48 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 F2D843A69F6 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 07:19:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] 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 hTkimB6OuviJ for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 07:19:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.bitschubser.de (mail.bitschubser.de [78.47.214.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D17F3A6AA6 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 07:19:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phex.sachmittel.de (dmeyer.openvpn.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.217.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.bitschubser.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id A54581021F8; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:19:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: by phex.sachmittel.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 43E29E57B; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:19:20 +0200 (CEST) To: Alexey Melnikov References: <4A5E4A7C.4070608@ieca.com> <4A5E6110.8060006@stpeter.im> <87r5wg4xbh.fsf@phex.sachmittel.de> <4A5F3F4A.9060505@stpeter.im> <877hy7tp0s.fsf@phex.sachmittel.de> <4A608678.6010507@isode.com> From: Dirk Meyer Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:19:20 +0200 In-Reply-To: <4A608678.6010507@isode.com> (Alexey Melnikov's message of "Fri\, 17 Jul 2009 15\:11\:04 +0100") Message-ID: <871voftms7.fsf@phex.sachmittel.de> Organization: Universitaet Bremen, Germany Lines: 17 User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: XMPP Subject: Re: [xmpp] Agenda Topics 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, 17 Jul 2009 14:19:48 -0000 Alexey Melnikov wrote: > Dirk Meyer wrote: >>My understanding of SCRAM is that it may not possible to use it without >>some modification, but there is (an expired) version of SRP used for SASL >>http://www.melnikov.ca/mel/Drafts/draft-burdis-cat-srp-sasl-07.txt >> > Can you clarify what would need to be changed in SCRAM in order to > make it work for your purposes? I am no security expert, so I may be wrong here. But I'm not sure it provides mutal authentication with simple passwords (like a 4 digest PIN). There was some discussion about that on the XMPP security mailing list. IIRC is it possible for the client in the role of the SASL server to guess the password based on a dictionary. Dirk From turners@ieca.com Thu Jul 23 10:52:40 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 277B13A69C0 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:52:40 -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 qKA73Ue7wznb for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:52:39 -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 AD1963A6A0D for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:52:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 58705 invoked from network); 23 Jul 2009 17:49:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thunderfish.local) (turners@96.231.126.20 with plain) by smtp103.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 23 Jul 2009 17:49:35 -0000 X-Yahoo-SMTP: qPTWNAeswBAtDTSn9GKlmmL3C90ke7grn_5n9To- X-YMail-OSG: lBOOWR0VM1mgvTAmPqUDBbdFYjwRarXLV3WLRvyre9prsOyT2jXvef3yfBBa6mcctFstfxTaRz56EaFIwv6ySacycjGShlQZ0.qekIjPvE5jK_tiGQJqnCJNVR7Ps0EvDlUckE3jLO8iLgdhTrWRFxcCQ5lApG6wD1fsNr_vHTcyVwR2tXjDjs_zg1NP4AwDlV3WthreImm1PfGlestK9Z3IVwHLV2tqLsXVT2MP35Nk0zAOkTdsKvJjq7wpgw7QwbfKTz3rqHRWwtb7hSB5NncRmnzoK1K7Lpba0Gzm7AgqkqY- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 Message-ID: <4A68A2AF.30406@ieca.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:49:35 -0400 From: Sean Turner User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Macintosh/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: XMPP References: <4A2D0C96.4070809@ieca.com> <4A5E66BD.50201@ieca.com> <4A5FDB50.2020001@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: <4A5FDB50.2020001@stpeter.im> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:52:40 -0000 Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 7/15/09 5:31 PM, Sean Turner wrote: >> 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 >>> >>> >>> 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 >> There has been little traffic on the WG adoption of this as WG item. >> Have people read this draft (now -02)? Is it a good starting point? >> Are there requirements that are missing? > > So that people can find it, in fact it's now -01... > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saintandre-xmpp-e2e-requirements-01 > > Perhaps I'm biased, but I think we need some kind of requirements > document for end-to-end encryption, given that (1) it seems the IESG > will require a solution to this problem before being able to sign off on > the revisions to RFCs 3920/3921 and (2) the prior solution to broadly > the same problem has not passed muster (as far as I know, there are > exactly zero implementations of RFC 3923). IMHO the threat analysis and > requirements in draft-saintandre-xmpp-e2e-requirements provide some > framing for any work we might do here. I have heard some quibbles about > some of the requirements (e.g., questions have been raised as to whether > we really need perfect forward secrecy), but I think those requirements > have broad consensus given that most of them were previously discussed > and published in XEP-0210: > > http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0210.html > > Anyway I think this provides a reasonable starting point for further > discussion. But, again, I'm probably biased in the matter... > > Peter Normally, the problem with requirements documents is that somebody has actually got to write the document. But, you've already done the work so I think it's worth formally accepting them to ensure we stay on track. The ID doesn't necessarily have to proceed to RFC status, but if we keep it alive it will keep us on track. The reason I keep pushing for list acceptance of new WG items is that I want to make sure there's a clear consensus on acceptance. There have been problems in the past when a document was accepted when it shouldn't have. spt From turners@ieca.com Thu Jul 23 10:55:57 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 70B2828C1B1 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:55:57 -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 B2B-6ZroHv0v for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:55:56 -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 5E6503A6BE9 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:54:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 8631 invoked from network); 23 Jul 2009 17:53:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thunderfish.local) (turners@96.231.126.20 with plain) by smtp101.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 23 Jul 2009 17:53:32 -0000 X-Yahoo-SMTP: qPTWNAeswBAtDTSn9GKlmmL3C90ke7grn_5n9To- X-YMail-OSG: Uxsj6M8VM1mjL3nawC1inM7_QC3ICxYqDJ_i7sbUNt6kSauc4oSDVLk5tilMo3jguJrQXW3xaE3Dn7pfR0_p8_RNcABPOE5bLeWHGdbcL.UWXFzDPf9Ek45Mj4M0vXgyPMaIUZ_z29zwq2oXbzZEkSJLR4JEXGY8bX3uSuYkY0Wt0vORpPcsMXA_6GFC5y68xIiydi7dKzJVezJV1A4ltVUQ_pQ03Lb.JpmK4zX3_0r8Z3tcK8.eOaF3SgnqpT3.VPzruDAs8gFcQQoRE..pQiKrjxeInMRh3rAU0hsNHXHRpsO5vyhZLjCKpep_y9pW3EQGP1wdC7xunH95gyRWSN._ixrS4bGMbkFG_NxcvM1yhmtwlrgfNf0qvko- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 Message-ID: <4A68A38E.1010307@ieca.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:53:18 -0400 From: Sean Turner User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Macintosh/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: trac@localhost.amsl.com References: <057.6b3002661f874ecf6ea1638cffa6a05b@tools.ietf.org> In-Reply-To: <057.6b3002661f874ecf6ea1638cffa6a05b@tools.ietf.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xmpp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [xmpp] #1: mention SCTP as alternative transport? 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, 23 Jul 2009 17:55:57 -0000 xmpp issue tracker wrote: > #1: mention SCTP as alternative transport? > -----------------------------------+---------------------------------------- > Reporter: stpeter@stpeter.im | Owner: Peter Saint-Andre > Type: enhancement | Status: new > Priority: minor | Milestone: milestone1 > Component: 3920bis | Version: > Severity: Submitted WG Document | Keywords: > -----------------------------------+---------------------------------------- > RFC 3920 defines a binding to TCP only. Does it make sense to mention SCTP > (RFC 4960) in 3920bis as a possible alternative binding? Does the list stop there or will there be others? spt From turners@ieca.com Thu Jul 23 11:05:21 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 D75B73A6B9E for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:05:21 -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 wLvr1XtrgaCB for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:05:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp105.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com (smtp105.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com [206.190.52.174]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E93D13A6B03 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:05:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 43633 invoked from network); 23 Jul 2009 17:52:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thunderfish.local) (turners@96.231.126.20 with plain) by smtp105.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 23 Jul 2009 17:52:53 -0000 X-Yahoo-SMTP: qPTWNAeswBAtDTSn9GKlmmL3C90ke7grn_5n9To- X-YMail-OSG: 0bSL9G4VM1kmCFXh47hioXG9WaaOofn8kioVyjQ5.34pEsdFG5zSjVUU0XVqXwBBvPX_tKUnPHX4025A6n56LVNjB3g_OEcw2GbVek2RCk1Dt.U0czFqJpef_CFJvVNieKJiseEFR1pHhBIoTyo6s671hPjHa5l4DTu61XCo7cUvSMf8BJpZEd4la7VrJ1phWrc3ARh81dFKowUPvbmXoHMcZgDwdyQ2_E6FFciyStEAtHrBQLxZYxtlROtjp4EKJ8ufnHwyIXTeIAD_XCtF5nRdRHFXUWaXwt4eamsvQamgpthTQl69zgJPFijUYyVkfQuhHv03XscIWGrZIPXFkuBO1bRl.nGFT8jG X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 Message-ID: <4A68A357.8030106@ieca.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:52:23 -0400 From: Sean Turner User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Macintosh/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Saint-Andre References: <057.931cf056b6018d70611b93750f84308d@tools.ietf.org> <4A53970B.4050402@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: <4A53970B.4050402@stpeter.im> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: xmpp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [xmpp] #2: split TLS cipher recommendations into separate spec? 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, 23 Jul 2009 18:05:21 -0000 Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 7/7/09 12:39 PM, Jiří Zárevúcky wrote: >> 2009/7/7 xmpp issue tracker : >>> #2: split TLS cipher recommendations into separate spec? >>> --------------------------------+------------------------------------------- >>> >> Perhaps it would be nice to have a separate specification for the >> exact requirements, but I'm skeptical about real-life value of any >> such definitions. Everyone (perhaps except of some embedded platforms, >> but that's not really my area) will use abstract TLS libraries anyway. >> >> I believe an ordinary (and sane) programmer will certainly not bother >> with TLS implementation or anything concerning it. > > You're probably right... > >> btw, is it OK to respond to the tickets on this list instead of >> commenting them directly? > > Sure. Indeed I prefer it. I just figured I'd test the issue tracker > since that's what the IETF Tools Team has given us. :) > > Peter Splitting out the algorithms from the protocol gets done a lot in the security area because the protocol doesn't change much just the algorithms. The issue then is that there needs to be another document that says: use this protocol and these algorithms for version X of the protocol. If we split it out would we need a 3rd document to do that? spt From stpeter@stpeter.im Thu Jul 23 11:33:14 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 955A23A6BB8 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:33:14 -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 U2T1DjikKjzp for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:33:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3C113A69C0 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:33:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from squire.local (ip-216-17-182-211.rev.frii.com [216.17.182.211]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 061B74007B; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:32:31 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4A68ACBE.2040908@stpeter.im> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:32:30 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Macintosh/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sean Turner References: <057.6b3002661f874ecf6ea1638cffa6a05b@tools.ietf.org> <4A68A38E.1010307@ieca.com> In-Reply-To: <4A68A38E.1010307@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: trac@localhost.amsl.com, xmpp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [xmpp] #1: mention SCTP as alternative transport? 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, 23 Jul 2009 18:33:14 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 7/23/09 11:53 AM, Sean Turner wrote: > xmpp issue tracker wrote: >> #1: mention SCTP as alternative transport? >> -----------------------------------+---------------------------------------- >> >> Reporter: stpeter@stpeter.im | Owner: Peter Saint-Andre >> Type: enhancement | Status: new >> Priority: minor | Milestone: milestone1 >> Component: 3920bis | Version: >> Severity: Submitted WG Document | Keywords: >> -----------------------------------+---------------------------------------- >> >> RFC 3920 defines a binding to TCP only. Does it make sense to mention >> SCTP >> (RFC 4960) in 3920bis as a possible alternative binding? > > Does the list stop there or will there be others? I think so. XMPP over UDP sounds well-nigh impossible, and we already have XMPP over HTTP (a.k.a. BOSH). SCTP is often adduced as an alternative to TCP, so I think it might be at least worth mentioning such a possibility. 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 iEYEARECAAYFAkporL4ACgkQNL8k5A2w/vyjPgCfabim+jbgqmPDwNrl493y1D27 DZUAoPJTHuq9BWtjiAje6tZOpZ0OVsDB =EogF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From dmeyer@sachmittel.de Thu Jul 23 12:03:09 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 A03B63A6B0A for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:03:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] 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 B3CLbjTUepoz for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:03:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.bitschubser.de (mail.bitschubser.de [78.47.214.53]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CED633A6BCC for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:03:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phex.sachmittel.de (g224158022.adsl.alicedsl.de [92.224.158.22]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.bitschubser.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6B4F102208; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 20:52:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: by phex.sachmittel.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4928CB8004; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 20:52:29 +0200 (CEST) To: Peter Saint-Andre References: <057.6b3002661f874ecf6ea1638cffa6a05b@tools.ietf.org> <4A68A38E.1010307@ieca.com> <4A68ACBE.2040908@stpeter.im> From: Dirk Meyer Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 20:52:29 +0200 In-Reply-To: <4A68ACBE.2040908@stpeter.im> (Peter Saint-Andre's message of "Thu\, 23 Jul 2009 12\:32\:30 -0600") Message-ID: <87prbrdyfm.fsf@phex.sachmittel.de> Organization: Universitaet Bremen, Germany Lines: 35 User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: trac@localhost.amsl.com, xmpp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [xmpp] #1: mention SCTP as alternative transport? 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, 23 Jul 2009 19:03:09 -0000 Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 7/23/09 11:53 AM, Sean Turner wrote: >> xmpp issue tracker wrote: >>> #1: mention SCTP as alternative transport? >>> -----------------------------------+---------------------------------------- >>> >>> Reporter: stpeter@stpeter.im | Owner: Peter Saint-Andre >>> Type: enhancement | Status: new >>> Priority: minor | Milestone: milestone1 >>> Component: 3920bis | Version: >>> Severity: Submitted WG Document | Keywords: >>> -----------------------------------+---------------------------------------- >>> >>> RFC 3920 defines a binding to TCP only. Does it make sense to mention >>> SCTP >>> (RFC 4960) in 3920bis as a possible alternative binding? >> >> Does the list stop there or will there be others? > > I think so. XMPP over UDP sounds well-nigh impossible, and we already > have XMPP over HTTP (a.k.a. BOSH). SCTP is often adduced as an > alternative to TCP, so I think it might be at least worth mentioning > such a possibility. Maybe XMPP over DTN bundles in the future :) We should mention that TCP is only an example and that there may be different ways, but they may need some adjustments (XMPP over DTN does not seem to be that easy). Dirk -- Thunder rolled. ... It rolled a six. -- (Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!) From turners@ieca.com Thu Jul 23 12:39:52 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 A97273A6359 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:39:52 -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 cxrN1kUMKhOl for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:39:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp107.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com (smtp107.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com [206.190.52.176]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B3F473A6855 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:39:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 18154 invoked from network); 23 Jul 2009 19:37:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thunderfish.local) (turners@96.231.126.20 with plain) by smtp107.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 23 Jul 2009 19:37:58 -0000 X-Yahoo-SMTP: qPTWNAeswBAtDTSn9GKlmmL3C90ke7grn_5n9To- X-YMail-OSG: YRhQg.gVM1lqXcyT1oHEp3.T0nWuyxwQKopI8.fA2JneSMu3nge3c3XeA2_atqIQtK_vtJCgDnqsjAVhNWim7lh2.SJvEZR3sfnh.YtKOIEvX16QL0IXKml8l.BeF2SCoBKtgFdzHO3HtmdeEPZEBT1pgTxhMpXikSvJCVm0PJ.OFnesxa7W3nOzrPaAvnIc20jI6KzR8a6_XOmQK3W3rGM9bIWNFn_8hws18rJtGpXcroXqZJO8GYnV8O9PtZIX9hud091GVlaLIWCkRJnqKNQ2riUQJ_yuwEwey.7YKa7JuanXLNxWx_yH1x8BFBuo8aT1jfmi2KZYG51ww_KGBYtPBChJfcVEcAa_KY.lxkuf79mXRmVyibVGquE- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 Message-ID: <4A68BC16.6030708@ieca.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:37:58 -0400 From: Sean Turner User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Macintosh/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dirk Meyer , Peter Saint-Andre References: <057.6b3002661f874ecf6ea1638cffa6a05b@tools.ietf.org> <4A68A38E.1010307@ieca.com> <4A68ACBE.2040908@stpeter.im> <87prbrdyfm.fsf@phex.sachmittel.de> In-Reply-To: <87prbrdyfm.fsf@phex.sachmittel.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: xmpp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [xmpp] #1: mention SCTP as alternative transport? 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, 23 Jul 2009 19:39:52 -0000 Dirk Meyer wrote: > Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> On 7/23/09 11:53 AM, Sean Turner wrote: >>> xmpp issue tracker wrote: >>>> #1: mention SCTP as alternative transport? >>>> -----------------------------------+---------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> Reporter: stpeter@stpeter.im | Owner: Peter Saint-Andre >>>> Type: enhancement | Status: new >>>> Priority: minor | Milestone: milestone1 >>>> Component: 3920bis | Version: >>>> Severity: Submitted WG Document | Keywords: >>>> -----------------------------------+---------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> RFC 3920 defines a binding to TCP only. Does it make sense to mention >>>> SCTP >>>> (RFC 4960) in 3920bis as a possible alternative binding? >>> Does the list stop there or will there be others? >> I think so. XMPP over UDP sounds well-nigh impossible, and we already >> have XMPP over HTTP (a.k.a. BOSH). SCTP is often adduced as an >> alternative to TCP, so I think it might be at least worth mentioning >> such a possibility. > > Maybe XMPP over DTN bundles in the future :) We should mention that TCP > is only an example and that there may be different ways, but they may > need some adjustments (XMPP over DTN does not seem to be that easy). > Is it worth having a separate bindings document? spt From stpeter@stpeter.im Thu Jul 23 12:53:05 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 A4B093A6914 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:53:05 -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=[AWL=0.000, 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 7Pb+38QLlsXl for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:53:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B167D3A67C0 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:53:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from squire.local (ip-216-17-182-211.rev.frii.com [216.17.182.211]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 32F1D4007B; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:41:18 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4A68BCDC.4050800@stpeter.im> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:41:16 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Macintosh/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sean Turner References: <057.6b3002661f874ecf6ea1638cffa6a05b@tools.ietf.org> <4A68A38E.1010307@ieca.com> <4A68ACBE.2040908@stpeter.im> <87prbrdyfm.fsf@phex.sachmittel.de> <4A68BC16.6030708@ieca.com> In-Reply-To: <4A68BC16.6030708@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] #1: mention SCTP as alternative transport? 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, 23 Jul 2009 19:53:05 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 7/23/09 1:37 PM, Sean Turner wrote: > Dirk Meyer wrote: >> Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>> On 7/23/09 11:53 AM, Sean Turner wrote: >>>> xmpp issue tracker wrote: >>>>> #1: mention SCTP as alternative transport? >>>>> -----------------------------------+---------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Reporter: stpeter@stpeter.im | Owner: Peter Saint-Andre >>>>> Type: enhancement | Status: new >>>>> Priority: minor | Milestone: milestone1 >>>>> Component: 3920bis | Version: >>>>> Severity: Submitted WG Document | Keywords: >>>>> -----------------------------------+---------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> RFC 3920 defines a binding to TCP only. Does it make sense to mention >>>>> SCTP >>>>> (RFC 4960) in 3920bis as a possible alternative binding? >>>> Does the list stop there or will there be others? >>> I think so. XMPP over UDP sounds well-nigh impossible, and we already >>> have XMPP over HTTP (a.k.a. BOSH). SCTP is often adduced as an >>> alternative to TCP, so I think it might be at least worth mentioning >>> such a possibility. >> >> Maybe XMPP over DTN bundles in the future :) We should mention that TCP >> is only an example and that there may be different ways, but they may >> need some adjustments (XMPP over DTN does not seem to be that easy). >> > > Is it worth having a separate bindings document? I doubt it. IMHO it is better to leave the TCP binding in 3920bis and then define any other bindings in other documents. Splitting things up too much will make the concepts difficult to understand for the typical implementer, especially given that anything but the TCP binding is off the beaten path of XMPP development. 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 iEYEARECAAYFAkpovNwACgkQNL8k5A2w/vxjngCbBvW94WRLu7vtTR/BY+H9YvqH z0gAnj7BfMpAZhzAejJZPU3QT8x/npMS =JwoC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From alexey.melnikov@isode.com Fri Jul 24 02:35:48 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 C67C43A6875 for ; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 02:35:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.259 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.259 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.721, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619] 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 ZRDT93hRJCyC for ; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 02:35:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rufus.isode.com (rufus.isode.com [62.3.217.251]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D9E228C1B2 for ; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 02:35:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.88.5.30] ((unknown) [212.175.117.143]) by rufus.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPA id ; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:34:56 +0100 X-SMTP-Protocol-Errors: NORDNS Message-ID: <4A69801E.2000309@isode.com> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:34:22 +0300 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: Sean Turner References: <057.6b3002661f874ecf6ea1638cffa6a05b@tools.ietf.org> <4A68A38E.1010307@ieca.com> <4A68ACBE.2040908@stpeter.im> <87prbrdyfm.fsf@phex.sachmittel.de> <4A68BC16.6030708@ieca.com> <4A68BCDC.4050800@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: <4A68BCDC.4050800@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] #1: mention SCTP as alternative transport? 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, 24 Jul 2009 09:35:48 -0000 Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >On 7/23/09 1:37 PM, Sean Turner wrote: > > >>Dirk Meyer wrote: >> >> >>>Maybe XMPP over DTN bundles in the future :) We should mention that TCP >>>is only an example and that there may be different ways, but they may >>>need some adjustments (XMPP over DTN does not seem to be that easy). >>> >>> >>Is it worth having a separate bindings document? >> >> >I doubt it. IMHO it is better to leave the TCP binding in 3920bis and >then define any other bindings in other documents. Splitting things up >too much will make the concepts difficult to understand for the typical >implementer, especially given that anything but the TCP binding is off >the beaten path of XMPP development. > > I agree with Peter. Binding to TCP is just a small section. From turners@ieca.com Fri Jul 24 05:28:59 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 E164B28C172 for ; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 05:28:59 -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 Sb26EQCWOTpu for ; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 05:28:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp106.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com (smtp106.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com [206.190.52.175]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2694428C15C for ; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 05:28:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 32648 invoked from network); 24 Jul 2009 12:28:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO thunderfish.local) (turners@96.241.2.29 with plain) by smtp106.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 24 Jul 2009 12:28:34 -0000 X-Yahoo-SMTP: qPTWNAeswBAtDTSn9GKlmmL3C90ke7grn_5n9To- X-YMail-OSG: eOK8JvkVM1lg_zJqaEDtwmLpBIPVBSHvlcgusHscgumf9HD8qYgysUbxfXzCeZBRuOpPLFG60gW.weg56nAmeQhXAVSCJCvsgQFnxocm3UteJaw8sPNNeMJgA9oPeH6IM0IMgVoe_rAy._MrQ6Lc2YkTiZ8jQHZNXlZrkFHD14xTgER5h0Dv2u6yTKG3H8kE.mwSNRsXo8zt6HhqqSImJmWBkUrVhxLrewrgKWWYIQNy4HyZ51OEH_zbQlEk1ZuqyALD7wXMDMFjPtYTzH6pEqtj8WyT7eTLyw8ejv6MITBzYLwDx6bV.lYS0DbcrWH0ACIMnEFm1mxQWmDTsFju8PQUC4ZWCGFH X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 Message-ID: <4A69A8F1.7070500@ieca.com> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 08:28:33 -0400 From: Sean Turner User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Macintosh/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: XMPP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [xmpp] Agenda and Welcome Slides Posted 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, 24 Jul 2009 12:29:00 -0000 We have uploaded the agenda and welcome slides to the IETF meeting material website. Agenda: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/75/agenda/xmpp.txt Welcome: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/xmpp-0.pdf spt From stpeter@stpeter.im Fri Jul 24 19:22:26 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 D57123A6B65 for ; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 19:22:26 -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 XJ38v7vuQV+a for ; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 19:22:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4C2C3A6ACA for ; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 19:22:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from squire.local (ip-216-17-182-211.rev.frii.com [216.17.182.211]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 524E94007B; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 20:22:26 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4A6A6C61.6080909@stpeter.im> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 20:22:25 -0600 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Macintosh/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sean Turner References: <4A69A8F1.7070500@ieca.com> In-Reply-To: <4A69A8F1.7070500@ieca.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: XMPP Subject: Re: [xmpp] Agenda and Welcome Slides Posted 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: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 02:22:26 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 7/24/09 6:28 AM, Sean Turner wrote: > We have uploaded the agenda and welcome slides to the IETF meeting > material website. > Agenda: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/75/agenda/xmpp.txt > Welcome: http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/xmpp-0.pdf I will finish my slides on the flight to Stockholm tomorrow. :) 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/ iEYEARECAAYFAkpqbGEACgkQNL8k5A2w/vyOpwCeLgkesa0dCk0XBjEfFn/JPRYX xa4An3362zIXLIfaJBR31FLu4A65P5z4 =ybya -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From bernard.aboba@gmail.com Sat Jul 25 01:01:58 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 C962028C11A for ; Sat, 25 Jul 2009 01:01:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=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 1oULZveP45JJ for ; Sat, 25 Jul 2009 01:01:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from qw-out-2122.google.com (qw-out-2122.google.com [74.125.92.24]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FC0328C103 for ; Sat, 25 Jul 2009 01:01:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qw-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 5so1180112qwd.31 for ; Sat, 25 Jul 2009 01:01:55 -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; bh=2ek5HoimyZkCZrRiY13oyn7GN8rWlF4QNiKHnMc9U/U=; b=cqqRDy6QT/pzMues5245qQSy4/0kiN/hHv8rsPxrOto2VJ3nvdiJe9meaggoG56UBP tVRAUKyFfRSZzyASjB3wZlnBpOrHV0oMLdXCrTSbyRod/V5EnwbqrB9ZAnuFroZCEF+F 4f8bBUAuvJOegYjR+4iEIlljylqwO1hfHaWUo= 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; b=ZdSs7CK2jxIKZkHA+rr3A6S+5CTfNHno0fInfIEGLHmY1vaQkgG/vKWGF56mdSAG8r xUS67C7E64foDfNv8IeYvKglWSMbNc6PjavnzrkP7tJHK8RiToOUSDBFfimqsq6svPlz oGGHSYk4r4B1OZ5IiuQVwmw25bJ77NVmuaS/Q= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.80.193 with SMTP id u1mr4185903qak.238.1248508915795; Sat, 25 Jul 2009 01:01:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4A68A38E.1010307@ieca.com> References: <057.6b3002661f874ecf6ea1638cffa6a05b@tools.ietf.org> <4A68A38E.1010307@ieca.com> Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 10:01:55 +0200 Message-ID: <223709240907250101r43391876uf141611fe32228f@mail.gmail.com> From: Bernard Aboba To: Sean Turner Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015175cb50c6cc6e6046f83222a Cc: trac@localhost.amsl.com, xmpp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [xmpp] #1: mention SCTP as alternative transport? 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: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 08:01:58 -0000 --0015175cb50c6cc6e6046f83222a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The question is whether this affects interoperability. Can an implementation *only* support SCTP? Do we have existing implementations? Generally, bis documents close issues, not open them. On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Sean Turner wrote: > xmpp issue tracker wrote: > >> #1: mention SCTP as alternative transport? >> >> -----------------------------------+---------------------------------------- >> Reporter: stpeter@stpeter.im | Owner: Peter Saint-Andre >> Type: enhancement | Status: new >> Priority: minor | Milestone: milestone1 >> Component: 3920bis | Version: >> Severity: Submitted WG Document | Keywords: >> -----------------------------------+---------------------------------------- >> RFC 3920 defines a binding to TCP only. Does it make sense to mention >> SCTP >> (RFC 4960) in 3920bis as a possible alternative binding? >> > > Does the list stop there or will there be others? > > spt > > _______________________________________________ > xmpp mailing list > xmpp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp > --0015175cb50c6cc6e6046f83222a Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The question is whether this affects interoperability.=A0 Can an implementa= tion *only* support SCTP? Do we have existing implementations?=A0 Generally= , bis documents close issues, not open them.


On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com> wrote:
xmpp issue tracker wrote:
#1: mention SCTP as alternative transport?
-----------------------------------+---------------------------------------= -
=A0Reporter: =A0stp= eter@stpeter.im =A0 =A0 | =A0 =A0 =A0 Owner: =A0Peter Saint-Andre
=A0 =A0 Type: =A0enhancement =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0| =A0 =A0 =A0Status: = =A0new =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=A0Priority: =A0minor =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0= =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0| =A0 Milestone: =A0milestone1 =A0 =A0 =A0 Component: =A039= 20bis =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0| =A0 =A0 Version: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0= =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Severity: =A0Submitted WG Document =A0| =A0 =A0Keywords= : =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 -----------------------------------+-= ---------------------------------------
=A0RFC 3920 defines a binding to TCP only. Does it make sense to mention SC= TP
=A0(RFC 4960) in 3920bis as a possible alternative binding?

Does the list stop there or will there be others?

spt

_______________________________________________
xmpp mailing list
xmpp@ietf.org
ht= tps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp

--0015175cb50c6cc6e6046f83222a-- From stpeter@stpeter.im Sun Jul 26 15:18:08 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 F046C3A6A0D for ; Sun, 26 Jul 2009 15:18:08 -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 gj+ftUKiK4QB for ; Sun, 26 Jul 2009 15:18:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F3423A69DE for ; Sun, 26 Jul 2009 15:18:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from squire.local (unknown [212.112.167.85]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D7D944007B; Sun, 26 Jul 2009 16:17:59 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4A6CD603.8070006@stpeter.im> Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 00:17:39 +0200 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Macintosh/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: XMPP , XMPP Extension Discussion List X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [xmpp] XMPP WG meeting @ IETF 75 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, 26 Jul 2009 22:18:09 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The XMPP WG meeting at IETF 75 will be held at 09:00-11:30 local time (UTC+2 = 07:00-09:30 UTC) on Tuesday, July 28. You can join the meeting in the following ways: IRL: in Kongresshall A at the Stockholm City Conference Centre audio: http://feed.verilan.com/ietf/stream08.m3u MUC: xmpp:xmpp@jabber.ietf.org?join The agenda is at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/75/agenda/xmpp.txt The event is on the calendar at http://xmpp.org/xsf/XSF.ics Your participation is welcome! 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/ iEYEARECAAYFAkps1gMACgkQNL8k5A2w/vwD1gCg+3BwR2+IHRuYvwM0hZebxpMb tIEAoKOr4c0p/j0NMMHcycGPPbC0JKJ3 =3Gnl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From Joe.Hildebrand@webex.com Mon Jul 27 23:44:03 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 A4E6B3A67E3 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 23:44:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 srDm85TRyu1x for ; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 23:44:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gw2.webex.com (gw2.webex.com [64.68.122.209]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 324233A6AED for ; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 23:43:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SRV-EXSC03.webex.local ([192.168.252.198]) by gw2.webex.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 27 Jul 2009 23:43:46 -0700 Received: from 10.21.74.191 ([10.21.74.191]) by SRV-EXSC03.webex.local ([192.168.252.200]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 06:42:48 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.20.0.090605 Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:42:47 +0200 From: Joe Hildebrand To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Domain Name Assertions Thread-Index: AcoPTp46mPzXpPeLjEOyVaPFeqicOw== In-Reply-To: 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: 28 Jul 2009 06:43:46.0922 (UTC) FILETIME=[C1F22CA0:01CA0F4E] Subject: [xmpp] FW: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Domain Name Assertions 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, 28 Jul 2009 06:44:03 -0000 Of interest to this list. I'll give a short overview this morning. -- Joe Hildebrand ------ Forwarded Message From: XMPP Extensions Editor Reply-To: XMPP Standards Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:34:02 -0500 To: Subject: [Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Domain Name Assertions The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP. Title: Domain Name Assertions Abstract: An application-level approach to asserting and proving the delegated ownership of a domain name for server-to-server XMPP federation. URL: http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/dna.html The XMPP Council will decide at its next meeting whether to accept this proposal as an official XEP. ------ End of Forwarded Message From turners@ieca.com Thu Jul 30 02:30:16 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 C5F1928C266 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 02:30:16 -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 ZqgiNE19+oMW for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 02:30:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp104.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com (smtp104.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com [206.190.52.173]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E26CE28C1D8 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 02:30:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 81906 invoked from network); 30 Jul 2009 09:30:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dhcp-44d0.meeting.ietf.org) (turners@130.129.68.208 with plain) by smtp104.biz.mail.re2.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Jul 2009 09:30:15 -0000 X-Yahoo-SMTP: qPTWNAeswBAtDTSn9GKlmmL3C90ke7grn_5n9To- X-YMail-OSG: nRO17_IVM1nJasBTQ_czg3b6ybEvzeme45bry3rRGKEv6K22H.gadIEud3wDqMwyesFGlqItbCc0oH80Nbkssu.7THxrdLPttRTSCMzeAbZ1w0Tk0.kEqsFklZarjZjk.qZADnhrFN_drK.iWe2tmxiFnLiDMihMKxavbCEo32WABz3sJ4UeEG6kAmyvVhiimHfKbLwVc09CB2IXOiJF6GJyhn_qjgbI68lbASWSahYtQZxcFLgHbIffswP4p1QbtyIMMpLLAW.lY2AB19q2MhVQwGyZ1_M6SiSoFcYK1a4__yyKX0kCtzHmE8m6z3oCk5YJuJg- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 Message-ID: <4A716826.1010907@ieca.com> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:30:14 +0200 From: Sean Turner User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Macintosh/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: XMPP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [xmpp] Adopting draft-saintandre-xmpp-e2e-requirements-01 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, 30 Jul 2009 09:30:16 -0000 Two hums were taken to determine whether the WG will adopt draft-saintandre-xmpp-e2e-requirements-01 as the starting place for documenting our end-to-end requirements. One hum was those that were for adopting the ID as a WG item and the other as for not accepting the ID as a WG item. The consensus was to adopt the ID as a WG item. We want to know if there are any strong objections on the list. If you have a strong objection to adopting draft-saintandre-xmpp-e2e-requirements as a WG item please let the list know by 7 August 2009. spt From stpeter@stpeter.im Fri Jul 31 23:04:25 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 299603A6359 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:04:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.103 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.103 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.496, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=0.992] 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 uKBI-QRnmE63 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:04:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F162D3A6899 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:04:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from squire.local (dsl-251-28.dynamic-dsl.frii.net [216.17.251.28]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E1AE740C89 for ; Sat, 1 Aug 2009 00:04:08 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4A730973.5060000@stpeter.im> Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:10:43 +0200 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Macintosh/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: XMPP X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [xmpp] 3920: sending stanzas before binding a resource? 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: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 06:04:25 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I had a chat with Justin Karneges some time ago about a question that is slightly ambiguous in RFC 3920: can the client send stanzas before it has bound a resource? My answer is that it can, but only to exchange stanzas with the server itself, where the server itself might be acting on behalf of the account for which the client has authenticated. For example, the client might send a service discovery request to the server itself or to its own bare JID (say, to determine what other resources are currently authenticated). To clarify this, I have modified the first paragraph of the resource binding overview to read as follows: After a client authenticates with a server, it MUST bind a specific resource to the stream so that the server can properly address the client (see Section 3). That is, there MUST be an XMPP resource identifier associated with the bare JID () of the client, so that the address for use over that stream is a full JID of the form . This ensures that the server can deliver XML stanzas to and receive XML stanzas from the client in relation to entities other than the server itself, as explained under Section 11 (the client could exchange stanzas with the server itself before binding a resource since the full JID is needed only for addressing outside the context of the stream negotiated between the client and the server, but this is not commonly done). I am on a plane right now so I am not able to create an issue about this in the issue tracker. 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/ iEYEARECAAYFAkpzCXMACgkQNL8k5A2w/vz8+ACdEYFqrCNAd0KkGhN7wbYl3cxO sS4AnjZPw9viq7fOJUJXq//sVeqHm/CT =5/Om -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From stpeter@stpeter.im Fri Jul 31 23:04:25 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 2C8863A6925 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:04:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.02 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.02 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.413, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=0.992] 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 YyLrJ7CPk7jr for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:04:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78C3B3A6804 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:04:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from squire.local (dsl-251-28.dynamic-dsl.frii.net [216.17.251.28]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BA9C640C29; Sat, 1 Aug 2009 00:04:06 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4A72EBCB.4030304@stpeter.im> Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 15:04:11 +0200 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Macintosh/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Cridland References: <4A3E9B6E.2020200@ieca.com> <26070.1245658329.712436@puncture> In-Reply-To: <26070.1245658329.712436@puncture> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: XMPP Working Group 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: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 06:04:25 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 6/22/09 10:12 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > 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." Done, with editorial wordsmithing. > Might be worthwhile adding a pointer there to XMPP-CORE section 15.11, I don't particularly see the need for that pointer. Authorization would be based on JIDs, where comparison follows the rules defined in 3920bis (not on how JIDs appear to the eye). > 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). I have added the following note to Section 15.11 of 3920bis: Note: An entity outside the security perimeter of a particular server cannot reliably distinguish between bare JIDs of the form at that server, since the server could forge any such JID; therefore only the domain identifier can be authenticated or authorized with any level of 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. I have moved that bullet-point from Section 11 of 3921bis to Section 15.5 of 3920bis. 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/ iEYEARECAAYFAkpy68sACgkQNL8k5A2w/vzufQCgzJPjAlO++Q0Qb4njFB0v9hLT YS0AoPYFY34FlbP5eUIfH6zMVwq4pEoJ =+w21 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From stpeter@stpeter.im Fri Jul 31 23:04:25 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 BD44B3A6359 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:04:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.961 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.961 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.354, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=0.992] 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 XbacGRG87-hH for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:04:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA87E3A68A2 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:04:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from squire.local (dsl-251-28.dynamic-dsl.frii.net [216.17.251.28]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 152C34007B for ; Sat, 1 Aug 2009 00:04:12 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4A730BBB.3070407@stpeter.im> Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:20:27 +0200 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Macintosh/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: xmpp@ietf.org References: <057.6b3002661f874ecf6ea1638cffa6a05b@tools.ietf.org> In-Reply-To: <057.6b3002661f874ecf6ea1638cffa6a05b@tools.ietf.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [xmpp] #1: mention SCTP as alternative transport? 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: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 06:04:25 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 7/7/09 12:41 AM, xmpp issue tracker wrote: > #1: mention SCTP as alternative transport? > -----------------------------------+---------------------------------------- > Reporter: stpeter@stpeter.im | Owner: Peter Saint-Andre > Type: enhancement | Status: new > Priority: minor | Milestone: milestone1 > Component: 3920bis | Version: > Severity: Submitted WG Document | Keywords: > -----------------------------------+---------------------------------------- > RFC 3920 defines a binding to TCP only. Does it make sense to mention SCTP > (RFC 4960) in 3920bis as a possible alternative binding? I think we have consensus not to add any information about an SCTP binding to RFC 3920 and to leave the definition of such a binding to a separate specification. Therefore I shall close this issue when I again have access to the issue tracker. 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/ iEYEARECAAYFAkpzC7sACgkQNL8k5A2w/vx15wCgjVG1cVhOe1A8inS0Aw/rr/oi LjwAoPnGVNE20cdb3zOKneQe/00ebk7Q =V0tW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From stpeter@stpeter.im Fri Jul 31 23:04:26 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 0CF153A68A2 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:04:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.917 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.310, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=0.992] 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 OpwRhrUep66l for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:04:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EC033A689F for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:04:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from squire.local (dsl-251-28.dynamic-dsl.frii.net [216.17.251.28]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8DA1F4007B for ; Sat, 1 Aug 2009 00:04:10 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4A730B35.4090903@stpeter.im> Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:18:13 +0200 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Macintosh/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: XMPP References: <057.68667927e0bb839c72dd253854f8adee@tools.ietf.org> In-Reply-To: <057.68667927e0bb839c72dd253854f8adee@tools.ietf.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [xmpp] #3: whitespace pings are in fact keepalives 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: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 06:04:26 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 7/7/09 12:52 AM, xmpp issue tracker wrote: > #3: whitespace pings are in fact keepalives > --------------------------------+------------------------------------------- > Reporter: stpeter@stpeter.im | Owner: > Type: defect | Status: new > Priority: trivial | Milestone: milestone1 > Component: 3920bis | Version: > Severity: Active WG Document | Keywords: > --------------------------------+------------------------------------------- > It has been pointed out that the so-called "whitespace pings" mentioned in > Section 5.7.3 of draft-ietf-xmpp-3920bis-00 are in fact keepalives rather > than pings (since no "pong" is possible). This terminology needs to be > clarified. > > Reference: > http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2009-June/022114.html I have fixed this in my working copy. The paragraph in which the relevant text is found now reads as follows: An XML stream can appear idle at the XMPP level because the underlying TCP connection has become idle (e.g., a client's network connection has been lost). The typical method for detecting an idle TCP connection is to send a space character (U+0020) over the TCP connection between XML stanzas, which is allowed for XML streams as described under Section 12.7. The sending of such a space character is properly called a WHITESPACE KEEPALIVE (although the term "whitespace ping" is in common use, in fact it is not a ping since no "pong" is possible). The time between such whitespace keepalives (or other connection-testing methods) is a matter of implementation and local service policy; however, it is RECOMMENDED that any such test be performed not more than once every 60 seconds. 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/ iEUEARECAAYFAkpzCzUACgkQNL8k5A2w/vy4oACXSuBocDppRryMXrLXVHgwhSrs 2ACfQCnoceEJyCkGHtN/Nk2QAmJCPcs= =9v06 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From stpeter@stpeter.im Fri Jul 31 23:12:32 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 98C503A67A6 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:12:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.813 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.813 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.283, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.069] 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 EOED1-OGBrTd for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:12:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D31028C2A0 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:12:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from squire.local (dsl-251-28.dynamic-dsl.frii.net [216.17.251.28]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1693740C89; Sat, 1 Aug 2009 00:04:15 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4A736C06.4000203@stpeter.im> Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 00:11:18 +0200 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Macintosh/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Philipp Hancke References: <4A5F7F77.2000608@mail.symlynx.com> In-Reply-To: <4A5F7F77.2000608@mail.symlynx.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 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] presence subscriptions + desync 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: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 06:12:32 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 7/16/09 9:28 PM, Philipp Hancke wrote: > section 3.1.2 in 3921bis states: > | If the contact does not approve or deny the subscription request > | within some configurable amount of time, the user's server SHOULD > | resend the subscription request to the contact based on an > | implementation-specific algorithm > > This change shifts the responsibility for error detection and handling > from client (rfc 3921, 8.2 step 5) to the server (smart servers!). Not exactly, because nothing prevents the client from sending a subscription request again, too. But in practice clients do not automatically resend subscription requests, and I expect that end users rarely use the manual "resend subscription request" feature in clients like Psi (plus, many clients do not even include such a feature). > Why was this responsiblity shifted? Actually, are there clients that > implement the "old" version? Those that I tested did simply ignore the > error... Correct. > Resending the subscription request as proposed is hardly an option. If > the contact is offline for some weeks, the user's server will try to > resend for quite a number of times, without any necessicity. Let's say that the user's server resends the subscription request once a day while the contact is on vacation for five weeks (we'll assume that the contact lives in Europe :P). That's 35 additional presence stanzas, and such stanzas are extremely small. I don't see a huge network impact here. > The main problem is IMO that the > lacks a immediate acknowledgment by the contact's server. > The acknowledgment is only sent after user interaction. Hey, let's change presence subscriptions to use IQ stanzas. But then we'd ack every one and really add some stanzas to the network... > Is that because the subscription protocol predates the concept > of a "remote server"? Certainly not -- Jabber technologies were never envisioned as a service silo, even at the very beginning. > A possible solution is to provide a preliminary acknowledgement > for that request by sending an unavailable presence: > type='unavailable' id='subscription1' /> Presence leak! That's simply not going to fly. > This implies that the contact is technically reachable, and - if the > original subscription request was tagged with an id attribute - is > an cheap alternative for an iq-based request response protocol. > Stop resending if you receive this ack. If we really think we need this, we'll need to define an ack other than "unavailable", or specify the polling method that I described in the text you quoted. > A similar argument applies to , for which > there should be an acknowledgment as well. "SHOULD" on what basis? If the "unsubscribed" from the contact never reaches the user, the user's server will send a presence probe to the contact when the user comes online, and the contact's server will answer that probe with "unsbuscribed" (because according to the contact's server the user is not subscribed to the contact). This will happen every time that the contact comes online. I rather doubt that the connectivity from the contact's server to the user's server will be so fubar'd that none of these "unsubscribed" stanzas will ever be passed over the s2s link (and if that is the case, there are bigger problems than subscription state synchronization). Therefore I don't think that we would ever need to ack "unsubscribed". Therefore I conclude that the only direction we need to heal is the outbound subscription from user to contact. Here the user (or the user's server) can simply poll once in a while to make sure that the subscribe request went through and will be answered at some point. No, it's not beautiful and elegant, but it works with existing infrastructure without presence leaks or new values of the presence 'type' attribute. 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/ iEYEARECAAYFAkpzbAYACgkQNL8k5A2w/vya7gCfS1jBlHAkKI4UsdslbM0q+2cD O3IAoM4oMl9/TBFwlqbPxCM4G9dHZJQD =Rj+9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From stpeter@stpeter.im Fri Jul 31 23:22:32 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 3CFE83A6891 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:22:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.825 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.825 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.218, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=0.992] 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 5MmvLOpHzLfB for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:22:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F2453A6804 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:22:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from squire.local (dsl-251-28.dynamic-dsl.frii.net [216.17.251.28]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6C4DB4007B for ; Sat, 1 Aug 2009 00:04:13 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4A730EE9.3080803@stpeter.im> Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:34:01 +0200 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Macintosh/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: XMPP References: <057.d904165abfba5e11d86da30e43e75dd8@tools.ietf.org> In-Reply-To: <057.d904165abfba5e11d86da30e43e75dd8@tools.ietf.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 OpenPGP: url=http://www.saint-andre.com/me/stpeter.asc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [xmpp] #4: clarify error handling for unidirectional streams 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: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 06:22:32 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 7/7/09 12:58 AM, xmpp issue tracker wrote: > #4: clarify error handling for unidirectional streams > --------------------------------+------------------------------------------- > Reporter: stpeter@stpeter.im | Owner: > Type: defect | Status: new > Priority: minor | Milestone: milestone1 > Component: 3920bis | Version: > Severity: Active WG Document | Keywords: > --------------------------------+------------------------------------------- > When two XML streams are used (one in each direction) rather than using a > single bidirectional stream, stanza errors triggered by stanzas sent over > the outbound stream are returned on the inbound stream (since they are > inbound stanzas), whereas stream errors related to the outbound stream are > returned on the outbound stream (since they are not inbound stanzas but > strictly related to the outbound stream itself). This needs to be > clarified. > > Reference: > http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2009-June/022112.html To clarify this matter, I have added to my working copy a new subsection 5.8.1.4 that is entitled "Where Stream Errors Are Sent" and that reads as follows: When two XML streams are used between the initiating entity and the receiving entity (one in each direction) rather than using a single bidirectional stream, stanza errors triggered by stanzas sent over the outbound stream are returned on the inbound stream (since they are inbound stanzas from the perspective of the entity that sent the triggering stanza), whereas stream errors related to the outbound stream are returned on the outbound stream (since they are not inbound stanzas from the perspective of the entity that sent the triggering stanza but strictly related to the outbound stream itself); the same is true, naturally, of any stream errors that are related to the outbound stream but not triggered by an outbound stanza. I shall close this issue when I again have access to the issue tracker. 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/ iEYEARECAAYFAkpzDukACgkQNL8k5A2w/vwOrgCg5BYfEj1VdteDprcUBWw/Oz6Q q5kAoKw2zxj/W7rcYz/LT+EYo0YlwzpJ =BTQr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From stpeter@stpeter.im Fri Jul 31 23:42:51 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 1437E3A67FF for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:42:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.469 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.539, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.069, J_CHICKENPOX_47=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 3Fkr7qMCaUUQ for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:42:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stpeter.im (stpeter.im [207.210.219.233]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2AEF3A68D3 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:42:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from squire.local (dsl-251-28.dynamic-dsl.frii.net [216.17.251.28]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 60FF040CFE; Sat, 1 Aug 2009 00:04:19 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4A7374C9.5070803@stpeter.im> Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 00:48:41 +0200 From: Peter Saint-Andre User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Macintosh/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Philipp Hancke References: <4be2be550907090820h245d149ct7c0362c1d312dcce@mail.gmail.com> <4A561E1E.5090902@goodadvice.pages.de> <4A5620F3.40203@stpeter.im> <4A564A30.1040204@mail.symlynx.com> <4A57B145.4080906@stpeter.im> In-Reply-To: <4A57B145.4080906@stpeter.im> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 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] [Standards] none + pending in 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: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 06:42:51 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 7/10/09 11:23 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 7/9/09 1:51 PM, Philipp Hancke wrote: > >> The state transition NONE => NONE+PENDING IN should not modify the >> roster. This would be consistent with the last sentence in 3.1.3. > >> Instead, PENDING IN is determined by the existence of the the stored >> inbound subscription request (see section 3.1.3 rule #5). > >> Hence, if there is an existing roster entry with subscription=NONE >> it SHOULD still be sent to the interested resource, followed by the >> subscription request after the roster get is complete. >> If there is no existing roster entry, it is not created by the state >> change NONE => NONE+PENDING IN. Hence no roster item is sent to a client >> which requests the roster, only the subscription request is delivered. > >> I think this makes the note unnecessary. > >> There are some consequences of that, for example in 3.3.3. >> If the server has stored a subscription request in 3.1.3 >> (state = NONE+PENDING IN), it must upon receiving a unsubscribe >> from the contact (state transition => NONE) delete the >> stored subscription request. > > I think that is all correct. I shall adjust the spec accordingly. In my working copy I now have the following text: APPENDIX A.1 3. "None + Pending In" = contact and user are not subscribed to each other, and contact has sent user a subscription request but user has not replied yet; in fact, the user's server MUST NOT add the contact to the user's roster or and MUST NOT push or deliver roster items to the user in this state, but instead MUST simply note the existence of the inbound presence subscription request and wait until the user has approved the subscription request before adding the contact to the user's roster. SECTION 3.3.3 When the contact's server receives the unsubscribe notification, it MUST first check if the user is in the contact's roster with subscription='from' or subscription='both' (i.e., a subscription state of "From", "From + Pending Out", or "Both"; see Appendix A). If this check is successful, the contact's server MUST initiate a roster push to all of the contact's interested resources, containing an updated roster item for the contact with the 'subscription' attribute set to a value of "none" (if the subscription state was "From" or "From + Pending Out") or "to" (if the subscription state was "Both"). ... Otherwise -- that is, if the contact does not exist, if the user is not in the contact's roster, or if the user is in the contact's roster with a subscription state other than those described in the foregoing check -- then the contact's server MUST silently ignore the stanza by not delivering it to the contact, not modifying the contact's roster, and not generating a roster push to the contact's interested resources. However, if the contact's server is keeping track of an inbound presence subscription request from the user to the contact without having added the user to the contact's roster because the contact has not yet approved or denied the subscription request (equivalent to a roster state of "None + Pending In"), then the contact's server MUST simply remove any record of the inbound presence subscription request (it cannot remove the user from the contact's roster because the user was never added to the contact's roster). Let me know if I missed anything. 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/ iEYEARECAAYFAkpzdMkACgkQNL8k5A2w/vx5rgCfQ0D9H2kSsJX24dJQP7w+U2sB FNsAoMLOMU8jofiEkYt4hRaKJtA5bCZ3 =dnCI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----