XEP-0032: Jabber URI Scheme

WARNING: This document has been retracted by the author(s). Implementation of the protocol described herein is not recommended. Developers desiring similar functionality are advised to implement the protocol that supersedes this one (if any).

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

Note: This document has been superseded by RFC 5122 [1].

It is widely acknowledged that it would be good to be able to express a Jabber Identifier (JID) (see Definition of Jabber Identifiers (XEP-0029) [2]) as a Uniform Resource Identifier (see RFC 3986 [3]). In addition, there would be value in being able to interact with a JID through a URI scheme (e.g., by sending a message or a presence update).

Although XMPP enables a wide range of functionality, the authors propose that a Jabber URI scheme needs to support only a limited subset of the possible Jabber functionality. In particular, we see the following as core functions that need to be supported:

• Sending of basic messages
• Sending of basic presence
• Sending of subscription requests

2. Syntax

The syntactic components of a Jabber URI are as follows:

<xmpp>:[<node-identifier>@]<domain-identifier>[?<query>]

This scheme is similar to the mailto URI scheme [4]. One similarity is that a Jabber URI is, in the terminology of RFC 3986, not hierarchical but opaque. A URI that is hierarchical in nature uses the slash ("/") character in order to separate hierarchical components, as is familiar from HTTP and FTP URIs. By contrast, an opaque URI such as a mailto URI contains only the scheme (e.g., 'mailto'), a colon, an address (e.g., 'user@host'), and an optional query component.

Per the JID definition in XEP-0029, the node identifier is optional (i.e., a mere domain identifier is a valid JID). However, the proposed Jabber URI scheme forbids the inclusion of a resource identifier in the JID, even though XEP-0029 defines this as valid. This is partly because the authors see no compelling reason to include a resource identifier in the Jabber URI scheme, and also because including a resource would necessitate the inclusion of a slash character in an opaque URI, which is contrary to RFC 3986. Finally, the query component is optional.

3. URI Characters and Escape Sequences

RFC 3986 limits the characters included in a URI to US-ASCII characters, and further defines a number of US-ASCII characters as reserved or otherwise excluded. Reserved characters are special characters used as delimiters withing URIs and whose usage is limited to their reserved purpose as defined in RFC 3986 or a specific URI scheme. Excluded characters are control characters, spaces, and other common (non-URI-specific) delimiters such as angle brackets, double quotes, the number sign, and the percent sign. Reserved characters must be escaped if their usage in a specific context would conflict with their reserved purpose, and excluded characters must always be escaped. The set of disallowed charaacters for any specific URI component consists of the reserved and excluded characters for that component. These are defined below for each component of a Jabber URI.

#x22 (") | #x26 (&) | #x27 (') | #x2F (/) | 
#x3A (:) | #x3C (<) | #x3E (>) | #x40 (@) | 
#x7F (del) | #xFFFE (BOM) | #xFFFF (BOM)

#x24 ($) | #x2B (+) | #x2C (,) | #x3B (;) | #x3D (=) | #x3F (?)

#x23 (#) | #x25 (%)

#x22 (") | #x23 (#) | #x24 ($) | #x25 (%) | 
#x26 (&) | #x27 (') | #x2B (+) | #x2C (,) | 
#x2F (/) | #x3A (:) | #x3B (;) | #x3C (<) | 
#x3D (=) | #x3E (>) | #x3F (?) | #x40 (@) | 
#x7F (del) | #xFFFE (BOM) | #xFFFF (BOM)

4. Use Cases

Thus the most basic Jabber URI is user@host (sometimes referred to as a "bare JID") prepended by 'xmpp:', as shown in the following example.

xmpp:user@host
    

A URI containing bare JID and no query component should trigger an application to present a user with an appropriate interface to complete an action such as sending a message, sending presence, or managing a subscription. In order to make this possible, some basic queries must be included in the protocol.

The authors propose three allowable query types in a Jabber URI: message, presence, and subscribe [6]. These three basic URIs are described below by way of use cases.

xmpp:user@host?message
    

xmpp:user@host?message&subject=hi&body=Hello%20World&thread=abc123
    

xmpp:user@host?presence
    

xmpp:user@host?presence&show=dnd&status=taking%20a%20nap
    

xmpp:user@host?subscribe
    

xmpp:user@host?subscribe&type=subscribe
    

xmpp:user@host?subscribe&type=subscribed
    

xmpp:user@host?subscribe&type=unsubscribe
    

xmpp:user@host?subscribe&type=unsubscribed
    

5. Author Note

Peter Millard, co-author of this specification from version 0.1 through version 0.4, died on April 26, 2006.

Appendices

Appendix A: Document Information

Series: XEP
Number: 0032
Publisher: XMPP Standards Foundation
Status: Retracted
Type: Standards Track
Version: 0.4
Last Updated: 2003-09-02
Approving Body: XMPP Council
Dependencies: None
Supersedes: None
Superseded By: RFC 5122
Short Name:
Source Control: HTML
This document in other formats: XML  PDF

Appendix B: Author Information

Appendix C: Legal Notices

Appendix D: Relation to XMPP

The Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) is defined in the XMPP Core (RFC 6120) and XMPP IM (RFC 6121) specifications contributed by the XMPP Standards Foundation to the Internet Standards Process, which is managed by the Internet Engineering Task Force in accordance with RFC 2026. Any protocol defined in this document has been developed outside the Internet Standards Process and is to be understood as an extension to XMPP rather than as an evolution, development, or modification of XMPP itself.

Appendix E: Discussion Venue

The primary venue for discussion of XMPP Extension Protocols is the <standards@xmpp.org> discussion list.

Discussion on other xmpp.org discussion lists might also be appropriate; see <http://xmpp.org/about/discuss.shtml> for a complete list.

Errata can be sent to <editor@xmpp.org>.

Appendix F: Requirements Conformance

The following requirements keywords as used in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119: "MUST", "SHALL", "REQUIRED"; "MUST NOT", "SHALL NOT"; "SHOULD", "RECOMMENDED"; "SHOULD NOT", "NOT RECOMMENDED"; "MAY", "OPTIONAL".

Appendix G: Notes

Appendix H: Revision History

Note: Older versions of this specification might be available at http://xmpp.org/extensions/attic/

END