XEP-0310: Presence State Annotations

Abstract:This document provides a protocol using which a server is able to provide information to clients indicating that previously received presence data may be stale.
Author:Kevin Smith
Copyright:© 1999 - 2014 XMPP Standards Foundation. SEE LEGAL NOTICES.
Status:Deferred
Type:Standards Track
Version:0.1
Last Updated:2012-01-10

WARNING: Consideration of this document has been Deferred by the XMPP Standards Foundation. Implementation of the protocol described herein is not recommended.


Table of Contents


1. Introduction
2. Requirements
3. Discovery
4. Use Cases
    4.1. Remote Server Unavailable
    4.2. Local User Paused
    4.3. MUC loses contact with occupant
5. Business Rules
6. Security Considerations
7. IANA Considerations
8. XMPP Registrar Considerations
9. XML Schema

Appendices
    A: Document Information
    B: Author Information
    C: Legal Notices
    D: Relation to XMPP
    E: Discussion Venue
    F: Requirements Conformance
    G: Notes
    H: Revision History


1. Introduction

Presence data received by a client XMPP IM [1] are typically cached and displayed until they are replaced by an update (whereupon the new data will be cached and displayed...), for example graphically annotating availability of contacts in a roster. Where the entity from which the client has received the presence data is remote (residing upon a different server), unavailability of the server to server link will render the client unable to receive further presence updates from the entity but unaware that this is the case. Where the remote entity is a contact, it may cause the contact appear to be online (or offline, or away etc.) to the user of the client when they are not. Where the remote entity is a Multi-User Chat (XEP-0045) [2] room the case is more severe, as the MUC room may have ejected the client due to the server-to-server (S2S) link being unavailable to send stanzas but the client may still consider itself present in the room.

This extension provides a simple mechanism by which the local server can resend previous presence data to the client, annotated such that the client knows it would be unable to receive future updates.

2. Requirements

Allow servers to annotate presence stanzas sent to clients indicating lack of availability of a client or server link necessary for receipt of updated presence.

3. Discovery

Clients supporting this should have a feature of "urn:xmpp:psa" in caps. Servers autoenable based on this.

4. Use Cases

There are three main cases that links may be unavailable, leading to Romeo (a user of the montague.lit server) receiving presence state annotations:

Here we address each in turn. In each of these examples Romeo's client is assumed to have already indicated support for PSAs, as described in 'discovery' above.

4.1 Remote Server Unavailable

In this example, Romeo (romeo@montague.lit) has received presence from Juliet (juliet@capulet.lit/orchard), either because she's in his roster or because she sent directed presence.

Example 1. Romeo receives Juliet's presence

<presence
    from='juliet@capulet.lit/orchard'
    to='romeo@montague.lit/lane'>
  <status>Available</status>
</presence>

The server to server connection between capulet.lit and montague.lit then becomes unavailable for some reason (montague.lit can't know if this is a network error, a server failure, or some other condition). Juliet may now be updating her presence (e.g. she might now have gone offline), and Romeo would not be able to receive the presence update stanzas. As such, montague.lit MUST push the old presence to Romeo, annotated that this may now be stale due to an s2s outage.

The state-annotation element alerts Romeo's client to the unavailability of the server link through the server-unavailable child. The state-annotation MUST have a 'from' attribute set to the entity annotating the stanza (in this case montague.lit), and an OPTIONAL description child MAY provide human-readable text describing the change.

Example 2. Romeo receives Juliet's presence, annotated that the S2S is unavailable

<presence
    from='juliet@capulet.lit/orchard'
    to='romeo@montague.lit/lane'>
  <status>Available</status>
  <state-annotation xmlns="urn:xmpp:psa" from="montague.lit">
    <server-unavailable/>
    <description>The capulet.lit server is no longer available</description>
  </state-annotation>
</presence>

When the link between montague.lit and capulet.lit again becomes available, montague.lit MUST send an empty annotation of the previous presence to Romeo. It MAY subsequently attempt to refresh this presence by reprobing the remote entity.

Example 3. Romeo receives Juliet's annotated presence, annotated that S2S is restored

<presence
    from='juliet@capulet.lit/orchard'
    to='romeo@montague.lit/lane'>
  <status>Available</status>
  <state-annotation xmlns="urn:xmpp:psa" from="montague.lit"/>
</presence>

When an S2S connection is deemed not to be available, or to return to availability afterwards (TODO: guidelines on what this means), the server MUST send a corresponding annotated presence for every remote full JID on the unavailable server to every local client requesting PSAs where the local client has received presence from the remote JID and the most recent presence is an available type (i.e. not error or unavailable). Subscription requests are excluded from this processing.

4.2 Local User Paused

In this example, Romeo (romeo@montague.lit) has received presence from Benvolio (benvolio@montague.lit/lane), who is using BOSH.

Example 4. Romeo receives Benvolio's presence

<presence
    from='benvolio@montague.lit/lane'
    to='romeo@montague.lit/lane'>
  <status>He ran this way, and leap'd this orchard wall</status>
</presence>

Benvolio's client then uses the BOSH 'pause' feature for suspending the session. The montague.lit server MUST then send an annotated presence to Romeo's client saying that Benvolio's session has been paused. This MUST include the connection-paused element, MUST include a 'from' attribute of the entity doing the annotating (montague.lit) and MAY include a human-readable description element

Example 5. Romeo receives Benvolio's presence annotated for the paused session

<presence
    from='benvolio@montague.lit/lane'
    to='romeo@montague.lit/lane'>
  <state-annotation xmlns="urn:xmpp:psa" from="montague.lit">
    <connection-paused/>
    <description>benvolio's BOSH session has been paused</description>
  </state-annotation>
  <status>He ran this way, and leap'd this orchard wall</status>
</presence>

After pausing the session, Benvolio's client can either resume it or allow it to time out. If the session is resumed, the server MUST send an empty state-annotation to Romeo's client. If the session times out, it will simply send an unavailable presence as normal.

Example 6. Romeo receives Benvolio's presence annotated for the resumed session

<presence
    from='benvolio@montague.lit/lane'
    to='romeo@montague.lit/lane'>
  <state-annotation xmlns="urn:xmpp:psa" from="montague.lit"/>
  <status>He ran this way, and leap'd this orchard wall</status>
</presence>

Example 7. Romeo receives Benvolio's synthesized unavailable presence for the terminated session

<presence
    from='benvolio@montague.lit/lane'
    to='romeo@montague.lit/lane' type='unavailable'/>

When a server detects that a client's session has been temporarily suspended (either through a BOSH pause, or through a disconnection while using 198 prior to the resume period timing out) it MUST send annotated presence, as above, to every local and remote JID that has received the client session's presence (and where the presence is not subscription-related and has not been cancelled by a corresponding unavailable presence) and requests PSAs. If a paused session is resumed, the server MUST then send a corresponding empty state-annotation to each of these JIDs, as above. If the session is terminated the server MUST send unavailable presence using the usual rules from RFC6121.

4.3 MUC loses contact with occupant

In this example, Romeo (romeo@montague.lit) is an occupant in the orchard@chats.shakespeare.lit MUC room, alongside Juliet (juliet@capulet.lit). (For these examples, the usual MUC payloads are elided; they should be present as required by xep45).

Example 8. Romeo receives a presence update from Juliet in the MUC room

<presence
    from='orchard@chats.shakespeare.lit/Juliet'
    to='romeo@montague.lit/lane'>
  <status>Ay me!</status>
</presence>

Some time later, the MUC service chats.shakespeare.lit loses server to server connectivity to capulet.lit (the server upon which Juliet's account resides). If the server does not immediately remove Juliet as an occupant of the room, it MUST send Romeo an annotated presence, following the rules for server-unavailable defined above in s2s.

Example 9. Romeo receives an annotated presence from the MUC room that Juliet's server is unavailable

<presence
    from='orchard@chats.shakespeare.lit/Juliet'
    to='romeo@montague.lit/lane'>
  <state-annotation xmlns="urn:xmpp:psa" from="chats.shakespeare.lit">
    <server-unavailable/>
    <description>The user's server is no longer reachable</description>
  </state-annotation>
  <status>Ay me!</status>
</presence>

If the S2S link becomes available and the MUC service has not yet ejected Juliet from the room, it MUST send an empty state-annotation to indicate this. If, instead, it has ejected Juliet in the meantime there is no additional stanza to send (as the ejection will already have been communicated to Romeo's client following the rules in xep45).

Example 10. Romeo receives an annotated presence from the MUC room that Juliet's server is again available

<presence
    from='orchard@chats.shakespeare.lit/Juliet'
    to='romeo@montague.lit/lane'>
  <state-annotation xmlns="urn:xmpp:psa" from="chats.shakespeare.lit"/>
  <status>Ay me!</status>
</presence>

5. Business Rules

6. Security Considerations

Although this involves sending stanzas on behalf of another entity, these are always sent by entities that are already within trust domains able to spoof such stanzas (e.g. the local server sending to a local user, or a remote server sending on behalf of its local users).

7. IANA Considerations

None.

8. XMPP Registrar Considerations

Needs a namespace.

9. XML Schema

When advanced.


Appendices


Appendix A: Document Information

Series: XEP
Number: 0310
Publisher: XMPP Standards Foundation
Status: Deferred
Type: Standards Track
Version: 0.1
Last Updated: 2012-01-10
Approving Body: XMPP Council
Dependencies: XMPP Core
Supersedes: None
Superseded By: None
Short Name: PSA
Source Control: HTML
This document in other formats: XML  PDF


Appendix B: Author Information

Kevin Smith

Email: kevin.smith@isode.com
JabberID: kevin.smith@isode.com


Appendix C: Legal Notices

Copyright

This XMPP Extension Protocol is copyright © 1999 - 2014 by the XMPP Standards Foundation (XSF).

Permissions

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this specification (the "Specification"), to make use of the Specification without restriction, including without limitation the rights to implement the Specification in a software program, deploy the Specification in a network service, and copy, modify, merge, publish, translate, distribute, sublicense, or sell copies of the Specification, and to permit persons to whom the Specification is furnished to do so, subject to the condition that the foregoing copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Specification. Unless separate permission is granted, modified works that are redistributed shall not contain misleading information regarding the authors, title, number, or publisher of the Specification, and shall not claim endorsement of the modified works by the authors, any organization or project to which the authors belong, or the XMPP Standards Foundation.

Disclaimer of Warranty

## NOTE WELL: This Specification is provided on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, express or implied, including, without limitation, any warranties or conditions of TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. ##

Limitation of Liability

In no event and under no legal theory, whether in tort (including negligence), contract, or otherwise, unless required by applicable law (such as deliberate and grossly negligent acts) or agreed to in writing, shall the XMPP Standards Foundation or any author of this Specification be liable for damages, including any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages of any character arising from, out of, or in connection with the Specification or the implementation, deployment, or other use of the Specification (including but not limited to damages for loss of goodwill, work stoppage, computer failure or malfunction, or any and all other commercial damages or losses), even if the XMPP Standards Foundation or such author has been advised of the possibility of such damages.

IPR Conformance

This XMPP Extension Protocol has been contributed in full conformance with the XSF's Intellectual Property Rights Policy (a copy of which can be found at <http://xmpp.org/about-xmpp/xsf/xsf-ipr-policy/> or obtained by writing to XMPP Standards Foundation, 1899 Wynkoop Street, Suite 600, Denver, CO 80202 USA).

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

1. RFC 6121: Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging and Presence <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6121>.

2. XEP-0045: Multi-User Chat <http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html>.


Appendix H: Revision History

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

Version 0.1 (2012-01-10)

Initial published version.

(psa)

Version 0.0.1 (2012-01-03)

Initial published version.

(kis)

END