|
RFC 3920 |
| TOC |
|
This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the “Internet Official Protocol Standards” (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Copyright © The Internet Society (2004).
This memo defines the core features of the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP), a protocol for streaming Extensible Markup Language (XML) elements in order to exchange structured information in close to real time between any two network endpoints. While XMPP provides a generalized, extensible framework for exchanging XML data, it is used mainly for the purpose of building instant messaging and presence applications that meet the requirements of RFC 2779.
|
RFC 3920 |
| TOC |
1.
Introduction
2.
Generalized Architecture
3.
Addressing Scheme
4.
XML Streams
5.
Use of TLS
6.
Use of SASL
7.
Resource Binding
8.
Server Dialback
9.
XML Stanzas
10.
Server Rules for Handling XML Stanzas
11.
XML Usage within XMPP
12.
Core Compliance Requirements
13.
Internationalization Considerations
14.
Security Considerations
15.
IANA Considerations
16.
References
16.1.
Normative References
16.2.
Informative References
Appendix A.
Nodeprep
Appendix B.
Resourceprep
Appendix C.
XML Schemas
Appendix D.
Differences Between Core Jabber Protocols and XMPP
Appendix E.
Contributors
Appendix F.
Acknowledgements
§
Author's Address
§
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements
| TOC |
| TOC |
The Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) is an open Extensible Markup Language XML (Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C., and E. Maler, “Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (2nd ed),” October 2000.) [XML] protocol for near-real-time messaging, presence, and request-response services. The basic syntax and semantics were developed originally within the Jabber open-source community, mainly in 1999. In 2002, the XMPP WG was chartered with developing an adaptation of the Jabber protocol that would be suitable as an IETF instant messaging (IM) and presence technology. As a result of work by the XMPP WG, the current memo defines the core features of XMPP 1.0; the extensions required to provide the instant messaging and presence functionality defined in RFC 2779 (Day, M., Aggarwal, S., and J. Vincent, “Instant Messaging / Presence Protocol Requirements,” February 2000.) [IMP‑REQS] are specified in Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging and Presence [XMPP‑IM] (Saint-Andre, P., “Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging and Presence,” October 2004.).
| TOC |
The capitalized key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC 2119 (Bradner, S., “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels,” March 1997.) [TERMS].
| TOC |
| TOC |
Although XMPP is not wedded to any specific network architecture, to date it usually has been implemented via a client-server architecture wherein a client utilizing XMPP accesses a server over a [TCP] (Postel, J., “Transmission Control Protocol,” September 1981.) connection, and servers also communicate with each other over TCP connections.
The following diagram provides a high-level overview of this architecture (where "-" represents communications that use XMPP and "=" represents communications that use any other protocol).
C1----S1---S2---C3
|
C2----+--G1===FN1===FC1
The symbols are as follows:
| TOC |
A server acts as an intelligent abstraction layer for XMPP communications. Its primary responsibilities are:
Most XMPP-compliant servers also assume responsibility for the storage of data that is used by clients (e.g., contact lists for users of XMPP-based instant messaging and presence applications); in this case, the XML data is processed directly by the server itself on behalf of the client and is not routed to another entity.
| TOC |
Most clients connect directly to a server over a [TCP] (Postel, J., “Transmission Control Protocol,” September 1981.) connection and use XMPP to take full advantage of the functionality provided by a server and any associated services. Multiple resources (e.g., devices or locations) MAY connect simultaneously to a server on behalf of each authorized client, with each resource differentiated by the resource identifier of an XMPP address (e.g., <node@domain/home> vs. <node@domain/work>) as defined under Addressing Scheme (Addressing Scheme). The RECOMMENDED port for connections between a client and a server is 5222, as registered with the IANA (see Port Numbers (Port Numbers)).
| TOC |
A gateway is a special-purpose server-side service whose primary function is to translate XMPP into the protocol used by a foreign (non-XMPP) messaging system, as well as to translate the return data back into XMPP. Examples are gateways to email (see [SMTP] (Klensin, J., “Simple Mail Transfer Protocol,” April 2001.)), Internet Relay Chat (see [IRC] (Oikarinen, J. and D. Reed, “Internet Relay Chat Protocol,” May 1993.)), SIMPLE (see [SIMPLE] (SIMPLE Working Group, “SIMPLE WG,” .)), Short Message Service (SMS), and legacy instant messaging services such as AIM, ICQ, MSN Messenger, and Yahoo! Instant Messenger. Communications between gateways and servers, and between gateways and the foreign messaging system, are not defined in this document.
| TOC |
Because each server is identified by a network address and because server-to-server communications are a straightforward extension of the client-to-server protocol, in practice, the system consists of a network of servers that inter-communicate. Thus, for example, <juliet@example.com> is able to exchange messages, presence, and other information with <romeo@example.net>. This pattern is familiar from messaging protocols (such as [SMTP] (Klensin, J., “Simple Mail Transfer Protocol,” April 2001.)) that make use of network addressing standards. Communications between any two servers are OPTIONAL. If enabled, such communications SHOULD occur over XML streams that are bound to [TCP] (Postel, J., “Transmission Control Protocol,” September 1981.) connections. The RECOMMENDED port for connections between servers is 5269, as registered with the IANA (see Port Numbers (Port Numbers)).
| TOC |
| TOC |
An entity is anything that can be considered a network endpoint (i.e., an ID on the network) and that can communicate using XMPP. All such entities are uniquely addressable in a form that is consistent with RFC 2396 [URI] (Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, “Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax,” August 1998.). For historical reasons, the address of an XMPP entity is called a Jabber Identifier or JID. A valid JID contains a set of ordered elements formed of a domain identifier, node identifier, and resource identifier.
The syntax for a JID is defined below using the Augmented Backus-Naur Form as defined in [ABNF] (Crocker, D. and P. Overell, “Augmented BNF for Syntax Specifications: ABNF,” November 1997.). (The IPv4address and IPv6address rules are defined in Appendix B of [IPv6] (Hinden, R. and S. Deering, “Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Addressing Architecture,” April 2003.); the allowable character sequences that conform to the node rule are defined by the Nodeprep profile of [STRINGPREP] (Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, “Preparation of Internationalized Strings ("stringprep"),” December 2002.) as documented in Appendix A of this memo; the allowable character sequences that conform to the resource rule are defined by the Resourceprep profile of [STRINGPREP] (Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, “Preparation of Internationalized Strings ("stringprep"),” December 2002.) as documented in Appendix B of this memo; and the sub-domain rule makes reference to the concept of an internationalized domain label as described in [IDNA] (Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P., and A. Costello, “Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA),” March 2003.).)
jid = [ node "@" ] domain [ "/" resource ]
domain = fqdn / address-literal
fqdn = (sub-domain 1*("." sub-domain))
sub-domain = (internationalized domain label)
address-literal = IPv4address / IPv6address
All JIDs are based on the foregoing structure. The most common use of this structure is to identify an instant messaging user, the server to which the user connects, and the user's connected resource (e.g., a specific client) in the form of <user@host/resource>. However, node types other than clients are possible; for example, a specific chat room offered by a multi-user chat service could be addressed as <room@service> (where "room" is the name of the chat room and "service" is the hostname of the multi-user chat service) and a specific occupant of such a room could be addressed as <room@service/nick> (where "nick" is the occupant's room nickname). Many other JID types are possible (e.g., <domain/resource> could be a server-side script or service).
Each allowable portion of a JID (node identifier, domain identifier, and resource identifier) MUST NOT be more than 1023 bytes in length, resulting in a maximum total size (including the '@' and '/' separators) of 3071 bytes.
| TOC |
The domain identifier is the primary identifier and is the only REQUIRED element of a JID (a mere domain identifier is a valid JID). It usually represents the network gateway or "primary" server to which other entities connect for XML routing and data management capabilities. However, the entity referenced by a domain identifier is not always a server, and may be a service that is addressed as a subdomain of a server that provides functionality above and beyond the capabilities of a server (e.g., a multi-user chat service, a user directory, or a gateway to a foreign messaging system).
The domain identifier for every server or service that will communicate over a network MAY be an IP address but SHOULD be a fully qualified domain name (see [DNS] (Mockapetris, P., “Domain names - implementation and specification,” November 1987.)). A domain identifier MUST be an "internationalized domain name" as defined in [IDNA] (Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P., and A. Costello, “Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA),” March 2003.), to which the Nameprep (Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, “Nameprep: A Stringprep Profile for Internationalized Domain Names (IDN),” March 2003.) [NAMEPREP] profile of stringprep (Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, “Preparation of Internationalized Strings ("stringprep"),” December 2002.) [STRINGPREP] can be applied without failing. Before comparing two domain identifiers, a server MUST (and a client SHOULD) first apply the Nameprep profile to the labels (as defined in [IDNA] (Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P., and A. Costello, “Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA),” March 2003.)) that make up each identifier.
| TOC |
The node identifier is an optional secondary identifier placed before the domain identifier and separated from the latter by the '@' character. It usually represents the entity requesting and using network access provided by the server or gateway (i.e., a client), although it can also represent other kinds of entities (e.g., a chat room associated with a multi-user chat service). The entity represented by a node identifier is addressed within the context of a specific domain; within instant messaging and presence applications of XMPP, this address is called a "bare JID" and is of the form <node@domain>.
A node identifier MUST be formatted such that the Nodeprep profile of [STRINGPREP] (Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, “Preparation of Internationalized Strings ("stringprep"),” December 2002.) can be applied without failing. Before comparing two node identifiers, a server MUST (and a client SHOULD) first apply the Nodeprep profile to each identifier.
| TOC |
The resource identifier is an optional tertiary identifier placed after the domain identifier and separated from the latter by the '/' character. A resource identifier may modify either a <node@domain> or a mere <domain> address. It usually represents a specific session, connection (e.g., a device or location), or object (e.g., a participant in a multi-user chat room) belonging to the entity associated with a node identifier. A resource identifier is opaque to both servers and other clients, and is typically defined by a client implementation when it provides the information necessary to complete Resource Binding (Resource Binding) (although it may be generated by a server on behalf of a client), after which it is referred to as a "connected resource". An entity MAY maintain multiple connected resources simultaneously, with each connected resource differentiated by a distinct resource identifier.
A resource identifier MUST be formatted such that the Resourceprep profile of [STRINGPREP] (Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, “Preparation of Internationalized Strings ("stringprep"),” December 2002.) can be applied without failing. Before comparing two resource identifiers, a server MUST (and a client SHOULD) first apply the Resourceprep profile to each identifier.
| TOC |
After SASL negotiation (Use of SASL) and, if appropriate, Resource Binding (Resource Binding), the receiving entity for a stream MUST determine the initiating entity's JID.
For server-to-server communications, the initiating entity's JID SHOULD be the authorization identity, derived from the authentication identity, as defined by the Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) specification (Myers, J., “Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL),” October 1997.) [SASL], if no authorization identity was specified during SASL negotiation (Use of SASL).
For client-to-server communications, the "bare JID" (<node@domain>) SHOULD be the authorization identity, derived from the authentication identity, as defined in [SASL] (Myers, J., “Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL),” October 1997.), if no authorization identity was specified during SASL negotiation (Use of SASL); the resource identifier portion of the "full JID" (<node@domain/resource>) SHOULD be the resource identifier negotiated by the client and server during Resource Binding (Resource Binding).
The receiving entity MUST ensure that the resulting JID (including node identifier, domain identifier, resource identifier, and separator characters) conforms to the rules and formats defined earlier in this section; to meet this restriction, the receiving entity may need to replace the JID sent by the initiating entity with the canonicalized JID as determined by the receiving entity.
| TOC |
| TOC |
Two fundamental concepts make possible the rapid, asynchronous exchange of relatively small payloads of structured information between presence-aware entities: XML streams and XML stanzas. These terms are defined as follows:
- Definition of XML Stream:
- An XML stream is a container for the exchange of XML elements between any two entities over a network. The start of an XML stream is denoted unambiguously by an opening XML <stream> tag (with appropriate attributes and namespace declarations), while the end of the XML stream is denoted unambiguously by a closing XML </stream> tag. During the life of the stream, the entity that initiated it can send an unbounded number of XML elements over the stream, either elements used to negotiate the stream (e.g., to negotiate Use of TLS (Use of TLS) or Use of SASL (Use of SASL)) or XML stanzas (as defined herein, <message/>, <presence/>, or <iq/> elements qualified by the default namespace). The "initial stream" is negotiated from the initiating entity (usually a client or server) to the receiving entity (usually a server), and can be seen as corresponding to the initiating entity's "session" with the receiving entity. The initial stream enables unidirectional communication from the initiating entity to the receiving entity; in order to enable information exchange from the receiving entity to the initiating entity, the receiving entity MUST negotiate a stream in the opposite direction (the "response stream").
- Definition of XML Stanza:
- An XML stanza is a discrete semantic unit of structured information that is sent from one entity to another over an XML stream. An XML stanza exists at the direct child level of the root <stream/> element and is said to be well-balanced if it matches the production [43] content of [XML] (Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C., and E. Maler, “Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (2nd ed),” October 2000.). The start of any XML stanza is denoted unambiguously by the element start tag at depth=1 of the XML stream (e.g., <presence>), and the end of any XML stanza is denoted unambiguously by the corresponding close tag at depth=1 (e.g., </presence>). An XML stanza MAY contain child elements (with accompanying attributes, elements, and XML character data) as necessary in order to convey the desired information. The only XML stanzas defined herein are the <message/>, <presence/>, and <iq/> elements qualified by the default namespace for the stream, as described under XML Stanzas (XML Stanzas); an XML element sent for the purpose of Transport Layer Security (TLS) negotiation (Use of TLS), Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) negotiation (Use of SASL), or server dialback (Server Dialback) is not considered to be an XML stanza.
Consider the example of a client's session with a server. In order to connect to a server, a client MUST initiate an XML stream by sending an opening <stream> tag to the server, optionally preceded by a text declaration specifying the XML version and the character encoding supported (see Inclusion of Text Declaration (Inclusion of Text Declaration); see also Character Encoding (Character Encoding)). Subject to local policies and service provisioning, the server SHOULD then reply with a second XML stream back to the client, again optionally preceded by a text declaration. Once the client has completed SASL negotiation (Use of SASL), the client MAY send an unbounded number of XML stanzas over the stream to any recipient on the network. When the client desires to close the stream, it simply sends a closing </stream> tag to the server (alternatively, the stream may be closed by the server), after which both the client and server SHOULD terminate the underlying connection (usually a TCP connection) as well.
Those who are accustomed to thinking of XML in a document-centric manner may wish to view a client's session with a server as consisting of two open-ended XML documents: one from the client to the server and one from the server to the client. From this perspective, the root <stream/> element can be considered the document entity for each "document", and the two "documents" are built up through the accumulation of XML stanzas sent over the two XML streams. However, this perspective is a convenience only; XMPP does not deal in documents but in XML streams and XML stanzas.
In essence, then, an XML stream acts as an envelope for all the XML stanzas sent during a session. We can represent this in a simplistic fashion as follows:
|--------------------| | <stream> | |--------------------| | <presence> | | <show/> | | </presence> | |--------------------| | <message to='foo'> | | <body/> | | </message> | |--------------------| | <iq to='bar'> | | <query/> | | </iq> | |--------------------| | ... | |--------------------| | </stream> | |--------------------|
| TOC |
Although there is no necessary coupling of an XML stream to a [TCP] (Postel, J., “Transmission Control Protocol,” September 1981.) connection (e.g., two entities could connect to each other via another mechanism such as polling over [HTTP] (Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, “Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1,” June 1999.)), this specification defines a binding of XMPP to TCP only. In the context of client-to-server communications, a server MUST allow a client to share a single TCP connection for XML stanzas sent from client to server and from server to client. In the context of server-to-server communications, a server MUST use one TCP connection for XML stanzas sent from the server to the peer and another TCP connection (initiated by the peer) for stanzas from the peer to the server, for a total of two TCP connections.
| TOC |
When negotiating XML streams in XMPP 1.0, TLS SHOULD be used as defined under Use of TLS (Use of TLS) and SASL MUST be used as defined under Use of SASL (Use of SASL). The "initial stream" (i.e., the stream from the initiating entity to the receiving entity) and the "response stream" (i.e., the stream from the receiving entity to the initiating entity) MUST be secured separately, although security in both directions MAY be established via mechanisms that provide mutual authentication. An entity SHOULD NOT attempt to send XML Stanzas (XML Stanzas) over the stream before the stream has been authenticated, but if it does, then the other entity MUST NOT accept such stanzas and SHOULD return a <not-authorized/> stream error and then terminate both the XML stream and the underlying TCP connection; note well that this applies to XML stanzas only (i.e., <message/>, <presence/>, and <iq/> elements scoped by the default namespace) and not to XML elements used for stream negotiation (e.g., elements used to negotiate Use of TLS (Use of TLS) or Use of SASL (Use of SASL)).
| TOC |
The attributes of the stream element are as follows:
We can summarize as follows:
| initiating to receiving | receiving to initiating
---------+---------------------------+-----------------------
to | hostname of receiver | silently ignored
from | silently ignored | hostname of receiver
id | silently ignored | session key
xml:lang | default language | default language
version | signals XMPP 1.0 support | signals XMPP 1.0 support
| TOC |
The version of XMPP specified herein is "1.0"; in particular, this encapsulates the stream-related protocols (Use of TLS (Use of TLS), Use of SASL (Use of SASL), and Stream Errors (Stream Errors)), as well as the semantics of the three defined XML stanza types (<message/>, <presence/>, and <iq/>). The numbering scheme for XMPP versions is "<major>.<minor>". The major and minor numbers MUST be treated as separate integers and each number MAY be incremented higher than a single digit. Thus, "XMPP 2.4" would be a lower version than "XMPP 2.13", which in turn would be lower than "XMPP 12.3". Leading zeros (e.g., "XMPP 6.01") MUST be ignored by recipients and MUST NOT be sent.
The major version number should be incremented only if the stream and stanza formats or required actions have changed so dramatically that an older version entity would not be able to interoperate with a newer version entity if it simply ignored the elements and attributes it did not understand and took the actions specified in the older specification. The minor version number indicates new capabilities, and MUST be ignored by an entity with a smaller minor version number, but used for informational purposes by the entity with the larger minor version number. For example, a minor version number might indicate the ability to process a newly defined value of the 'type' attribute for message, presence, or IQ stanzas; the entity with the larger minor version number would simply note that its correspondent would not be able to understand that value of the 'type' attribute and therefore would not send it.
The following rules apply to the generation and handling of the 'version' attribute within stream headers by implementations:
| TOC |
The stream element MUST possess both a streams namespace declaration and a default namespace declaration (as "namespace declaration" is defined in the XML namespaces specification (Bray, T., Hollander, D., and A. Layman, “Namespaces in XML,” January 1999.) [XML‑NAMES]). For detailed information regarding the streams namespace and default namespace, see Namespace Names and Prefixes (XML Namespace Names and Prefixes).
| TOC |
If the initiating entity includes the 'version' attribute set to a value of at least "1.0" in the initial stream header, the receiving entity MUST send a <features/> child element (prefixed by the streams namespace prefix) to the initiating entity in order to announce any stream-level features that can be negotiated (or capabilities that otherwise need to be advertised). Currently, this is used only to advertise Use of TLS (Use of TLS), Use of SASL (Use of SASL), and Resource Binding (Resource Binding) as defined herein, and for Session Establishment as defined in [XMPP‑IM] (Saint-Andre, P., “Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging and Presence,” October 2004.); however, the stream features functionality could be used to advertise other negotiable features in the future. If an entity does not understand or support some features, it SHOULD silently ignore them. If one or more security features (e.g., TLS and SASL) need to be successfully negotiated before a non-security-related feature (e.g., Resource Binding) can be offered, the non-security-related feature SHOULD NOT be included in the stream features that are advertised before the relevant security features have been negotiated.
| TOC |
The root stream element MAY contain an <error/> child element that is prefixed by the streams namespace prefix. The error child MUST be sent by a compliant entity (usually a server rather than a client) if it perceives that a stream-level error has occurred.
| TOC |
The following rules apply to stream-level errors:
| TOC |
The syntax for stream errors is as follows:
<stream:error>
<defined-condition xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-streams'/>
<text xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-streams'
xml:lang='langcode'>
OPTIONAL descriptive text
</text>
[OPTIONAL application-specific condition element]
</stream:error>
The <error/> element:
The <text/> element is OPTIONAL. If included, it SHOULD be used only to provide descriptive or diagnostic information that supplements the meaning of a defined condition or application-specific condition. It SHOULD NOT be interpreted programmatically by an application. It SHOULD NOT be used as the error message presented to a user, but MAY be shown in addition to the error message associated with the included condition element (or elements).
| TOC |
The following stream-level error conditions are defined:
| TOC |
As noted, an application MAY provide application-specific stream error information by including a properly-namespaced child in the error element. The application-specific element SHOULD supplement or further qualify a defined element. Thus the <error/> element will contain two or three child elements:
<stream:error>
<xml-not-well-formed
xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-streams'/>
<text xml:lang='en' xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-streams'>
Some special application diagnostic information!
</text>
<escape-your-data xmlns='application-ns'/>
</stream:error>
</stream:stream>
| TOC |
This section contains two simplified examples of a stream-based "session" of a client on a server (where the "C" lines are sent from the client to the server, and the "S" lines are sent from the server to the client); these examples are included for the purpose of illustrating the concepts introduced thus far.
A basic "session":
C: <?xml version='1.0'?>
<stream:stream
to='example.com'
xmlns='jabber:client'
xmlns:stream='http://etherx.jabber.org/streams'
version='1.0'>
S: <?xml version='1.0'?>
<stream:stream
from='example.com'
id='someid'
xmlns='jabber:client'
xmlns:stream='http://etherx.jabber.org/streams'
version='1.0'>
... encryption, authentication, and resource binding ...
C: <message from='juliet@example.com'
to='romeo@example.net'
xml:lang='en'>
C: <body>Art thou not Romeo, and a Montague?</body>
C: </message>
S: <message from='romeo@example.net'
to='juliet@example.com'
xml:lang='en'>
S: <body>Neither, fair saint, if either thee dislike.</body>
S: </message>
C: </stream:stream>
S: </stream:stream>
A "session" gone bad:
C: <?xml version='1.0'?>
<stream:stream
to='example.com'
xmlns='jabber:client'
xmlns:stream='http://etherx.jabber.org/streams'
version='1.0'>
S: <?xml version='1.0'?>
<stream:stream
from='example.com'
id='someid'
xmlns='jabber:client'
xmlns:stream='http://etherx.jabber.org/streams'
version='1.0'>
... encryption, authentication, and resource binding ...
C: <message xml:lang='en'>
<body>Bad XML, no closing body tag!
</message>
S: <stream:error>
<xml-not-well-formed
xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-streams'/>
</stream:error>
S: </stream:stream>
| TOC |
| TOC |
XMPP includes a method for securing the stream from tampering and eavesdropping. This channel encryption method makes use of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) protocol (Dierks, T., Allen, C., Treese, W., Karlton, P., Freier, A., and P. Kocher, “The TLS Protocol Version 1.0,” January 1999.) [TLS], along with a "STARTTLS" extension that is modelled after similar extensions for the IMAP (Crispin, M., “INTERNET MESSAGE ACCESS PROTOCOL - VERSION 4rev1,” March 2003.) [IMAP], POP3 (Myers, J. and M. Rose, “Post Office Protocol - Version 3,” May 1996.) [POP3], and ACAP (Newman, C. and J. Myers, “ACAP -- Application Configuration Access Protocol,” November 1997.) [ACAP] protocols as described in RFC 2595 (Newman, C., “Using TLS with IMAP, POP3 and ACAP,” June 1999.) [USINGTLS]. The namespace name for the STARTTLS extension is 'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-tls'.
An administrator of a given domain MAY require the use of TLS for client-to-server communications, server-to-server communications, or both. Clients SHOULD use TLS to secure the streams prior to attempting the completion of SASL negotiation (Use of SASL), and servers SHOULD use TLS between two domains for the purpose of securing server-to-server communications.
The following rules apply:
| TOC |
The [ASN.1] (CCITT, “Recommendation X.208: Specification of Abstract Syntax Notation One (ASN.1),” 1988.) Object Identifier "id-on-xmppAddr" described above is defined as follows:
id-pkix OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { iso(1) identified-organization(3)
dod(6) internet(1) security(5) mechanisms(5) pkix(7) }
id-on OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-pkix 8 } -- other name forms
id-on-xmppAddr OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-on 5 }
XmppAddr ::= UTF8String
This Object Identifier MAY also be represented in dotted display format as "1.3.6.1.5.5.7.8.5".
| TOC |
When an initiating entity secures a stream with a receiving entity using TLS, the steps involved are as follows:
| TOC |
The following example shows the data flow for a client securing a stream using STARTTLS (note: the alternate steps shown below are provided to illustrate the protocol for failure cases; they are not exhaustive and would not necessarily be triggered by the data sent in the example).
Step 1: Client initiates stream to server:
<stream:stream
xmlns='jabber:client'
xmlns:stream='http://etherx.jabber.org/streams'
to='example.com'
version='1.0'>
Step 2: Server responds by sending a stream tag to client:
<stream:stream
xmlns='jabber:client'
xmlns:stream='http://etherx.jabber.org/streams'
id='c2s_123'
from='example.com'
version='1.0'>
Step 3: Server sends the STARTTLS extension to client along with authentication mechanisms and any other stream features:
<stream:features>
<starttls xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-tls'>
<required/>
</starttls>
<mechanisms xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-sasl'>
<mechanism>DIGEST-MD5</mechanism>
<mechanism>PLAIN</mechanism>
</mechanisms>
</stream:features>
Step 4: Client sends the STARTTLS command to server:
<starttls xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-tls'/>
Step 5: Server informs client that it is allowed to proceed:
<proceed xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-tls'/>
Step 5 (alt): Server informs client that TLS negotiation has failed and closes both stream and TCP connection:
<failure xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-tls'/> </stream:stream>
Step 6: Client and server attempt to complete TLS negotiation over the existing TCP connection.
Step 7: If TLS negotiation is successful, client initiates a new stream to server:
<stream:stream
xmlns='jabber:client'
xmlns:stream='http://etherx.jabber.org/streams'
to='example.com'
version='1.0'>
Step 7 (alt): If TLS negotiation is unsuccessful, server closes TCP connection.
Step 8: Server responds by sending a stream header to client along with any available stream features:
<stream:stream
xmlns='jabber:client'
xmlns:stream='http://etherx.jabber.org/streams'
from='example.com'
id='c2s_234'
version='1.0'>
<stream:features>
<mechanisms xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-sasl'>
<mechanism>DIGEST-MD5</mechanism>
<mechanism>PLAIN</mechanism>
<mechanism>EXTERNAL</mechanism>
</mechanisms>
</stream:features>
Step 9: Client continues with SASL negotiation (Use of SASL).
| TOC |
The following example shows the data flow for two servers securing a stream using STARTTLS (note: the alternate steps shown below are provided to illustrate the protocol for failure cases; they are not exhaustive and would not necessarily be triggered by the data sent in the example).
Step 1: Server1 initiates stream to Server2:
<stream:stream
xmlns='jabber:server'
xmlns:stream='http://etherx.jabber.org/streams'
to='example.com'
version='1.0'>
Step 2: Server2 responds by sending a stream tag to Server1:
<stream:stream
xmlns='jabber:server'
xmlns:stream='http://etherx.jabber.org/streams'
from='example.com'
id='s2s_123'
version='1.0'>
Step 3: Server2 sends the STARTTLS extension to Server1 along with authentication mechanisms and any other stream features:
<stream:features>
<starttls xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-tls'>
<required/>
</starttls>
<mechanisms xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-sasl'>
<mechanism>DIGEST-MD5</mechanism>
<mechanism>KERBEROS_V4</mechanism>
</mechanisms>
</stream:features>
Step 4: Server1 sends the STARTTLS command to Server2:
<starttls xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-tls'/>
Step 5: Server2 informs Server1 that it is allowed to proceed:
<proceed xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-tls'/>
Step 5 (alt): Server2 informs Server1 that TLS negotiation has failed and closes stream:
<failure xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-tls'/> </stream:stream>
Step 6: Server1 and Server2 attempt to complete TLS negotiation via TCP.
Step 7: If TLS negotiation is successful, Server1 initiates a new stream to Server2:
<stream:stream
xmlns='jabber:server'
xmlns:stream='http://etherx.jabber.org/streams'
to='example.com'
version='1.0'>
Step 7 (alt): If TLS negotiation is unsuccessful, Server2 closes TCP connection.
Step 8: Server2 responds by sending a stream header to Server1 along with any available stream features:
<stream:stream
xmlns='jabber:server'
xmlns:stream='http://etherx.jabber.org/streams'
from='example.com'
id='s2s_234'
version='1.0'>
<stream:features>
<mechanisms xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-sasl'>
<mechanism>DIGEST-MD5</mechanism>
<mechanism>KERBEROS_V4</mechanism>
<mechanism>EXTERNAL</mechanism>
</mechanisms>
</stream:features>
Step 9: Server1 continues with SASL negotiation (Use of SASL).
| TOC |
| TOC |
XMPP includes a method for authenticating a stream by means of an XMPP-specific profile of the Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) protocol (Myers, J., “Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL),” October 1997.) [SASL]. SASL provides a generalized method for adding authentication support to connection-based protocols, and XMPP uses a generic XML namespace profile for SASL that conforms to the profiling requirements of [SASL] (Myers, J., “Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL),” October 1997.).
The following rules apply:
| TOC |
When an initiating entity authenticates with a receiving entity using SASL, the steps involved are as follows:
This series of challenge/response pairs continues until one of three things happens:
| TOC |
The profiling requirements of [SASL] (Myers, J., “Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL),” October 1997.) require that the following information be supplied by a protocol definition:
- service name:
- "xmpp"
- initiation sequence:
- After the initiating entity provides an opening XML stream header and the receiving entity replies in kind, the receiving entity provides a list of acceptable authentication methods. The initiating entity chooses one method from the list and sends it to the receiving entity as the value of the 'mechanism' attribute possessed by an <auth/> element, optionally including an initial response to avoid a round trip.
- exchange sequence:
- Challenges and responses are carried through the exchange of <challenge/> elements from receiving entity to initiating entity and <response/> elements from initiating entity to receiving entity. The receiving entity reports failure by sending a <failure/> element and success by sending a <success/> element; the initiating entity aborts the exchange by sending an <abort/> element. Upon successful negotiation, both sides consider the original XML stream to be closed and new stream headers are sent by both entities.
- security layer negotiation:
- The security layer takes effect immediately after sending the closing ">" character of the <success/> element for the receiving entity, and immediately after receiving the closing ">" character of the <success/> element for the initiating entity. The order of layers is first [TCP] (Postel, J., “Transmission Control Protocol,” September 1981.), then [TLS] (Dierks, T., Allen, C., Treese, W., Karlton, P., Freier, A., and P. Kocher, “The TLS Protocol Version 1.0,” January 1999.), then [SASL] (Myers, J., “Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL),” October 1997.), then XMPP.
- use of the authorization identity:
- The authorization identity may be used by xmpp to denote the non-default <node@domain> of a client or the sending <domain> of a server.
| TOC |
The following SASL-related error conditions are defined:
| TOC |
The following example shows the data flow for a client authenticating with a server using SASL, normally after successful TLS negotiation (note: the alternate steps shown below are provided to illustrate the protocol for failure cases; they are not exhaustive and would not necessarily be triggered by the data sent in the example).
Step 1: Client initiates stream to server:
<stream:stream
xmlns='jabber:client'
xmlns:stream='http://etherx.jabber.org/streams'
to='example.com'
version='1.0'>
Step 2: Server responds with a stream tag sent to client:
<stream:stream
xmlns='jabber:client'
xmlns:stream='http://etherx.jabber.org/streams'
id='c2s_234'
from='example.com'
version='1.0'>
Step 3: Server informs client of available authentication mechanisms:
<stream:features>
<mechanisms xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-sasl'>
<mechanism>DIGEST-MD5</mechanism>
<mechanism>PLAIN</mechanism>
</mechanisms>
</stream:features>
Step 4: Client selects an authentication mechanism:
<auth xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-sasl'
mechanism='DIGEST-MD5'/>
Step 5: Server sends a [BASE64] (Josefsson, S., “The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data Encodings,” July 2003.) encoded challenge to client:
<challenge xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-sasl'> cmVhbG09InNvbWVyZWFsbSIsbm9uY2U9Ik9BNk1HOXRFUUdtMmhoIixxb3A9ImF1dGgi LGNoYXJzZXQ9dXRmLTgsYWxnb3JpdGhtPW1kNS1zZXNzCg== </challenge>
The decoded challenge is:
realm="somerealm",nonce="OA6MG9tEQGm2hh",\ qop="auth",charset=utf-8,algorithm=md5-sess
Step 5 (alt): Server returns error to client:
<failure xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-sasl'> <incorrect-encoding/> </failure> </stream:stream>
Step 6: Client sends a [BASE64] (Josefsson, S., “The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data Encodings,” July 2003.) encoded response to the challenge:
<response xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-sasl'> dXNlcm5hbWU9InNvbWVub2RlIixyZWFsbT0ic29tZXJlYWxtIixub25jZT0i T0E2TUc5dEVRR20yaGgiLGNub25jZT0iT0E2TUhYaDZWcVRyUmsiLG5jPTAw MDAwMDAxLHFvcD1hdXRoLGRpZ2VzdC11cmk9InhtcHAvZXhhbXBsZS5jb20i LHJlc3BvbnNlPWQzODhkYWQ5MGQ0YmJkNzYwYTE1MjMyMWYyMTQzYWY3LGNo YXJzZXQ9dXRmLTgK </response>
The decoded response is:
username="somenode",realm="somerealm",\ nonce="OA6MG9tEQGm2hh",cnonce="OA6MHXh6VqTrRk",\ nc=00000001,qop=auth,digest-uri="xmpp/example.com",\ response=d388dad90d4bbd760a152321f2143af7,charset=utf-8
Step 7: Server sends another [BASE64] (Josefsson, S., “The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data Encodings,” July 2003.) encoded challenge to client:
<challenge xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-sasl'> cnNwYXV0aD1lYTQwZjYwMzM1YzQyN2I1NTI3Yjg0ZGJhYmNkZmZmZAo= </challenge>
The decoded challenge is:
rspauth=ea40f60335c427b5527b84dbabcdfffd
Step 7 (alt): Server returns error to client:
<failure xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-sasl'> <temporary-auth-failure/> </failure> </stream:stream>
Step 8: Client responds to the challenge:
<response xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-sasl'/>
Step 9: Server informs client of successful authentication:
<success xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-sasl'/>
Step 9 (alt): Server informs client of failed authentication:
<failure xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-sasl'> <temporary-auth-failure/> </failure> </stream:stream>
Step 10: Client initiates a new stream to server:
<stream:stream
xmlns='jabber:client'
xmlns:stream='http://etherx.jabber.org/streams'
to='example.com'
version='1.0'>
Step 11: Server responds by sending a stream header to client along with any additional features (or an empty features element):
<stream:stream
xmlns='jabber:client'
xmlns:stream='http://etherx.jabber.org/streams'
id='c2s_345'
from='example.com'
version='1.0'>
<stream:features>
<bind xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-bind'/>
<session xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-session'/>
</stream:features>
| TOC |
The following example shows the data flow for a server authenticating with another server using SASL, normally after successful TLS negotiation (note: the alternate steps shown below are provided to illustrate the protocol for failure cases; they are not exhaustive and would not necessarily be triggered by the data sent in the example).
Step 1: Server1 initiates stream to Server2:
<stream:stream
xmlns='jabber:server'
xmlns:stream='http://etherx.jabber.org/streams'
to='example.com'
version='1.0'>
Step 2: Server2 responds with a stream tag sent to Server1:
<stream:stream
xmlns='jabber:server'
xmlns:stream='http://etherx.jabber.org/streams'
from='example.com'
id='s2s_234'
version='1.0'>
Step 3: Server2 informs Server1 of available authentication mechanisms:
<stream:features>
<mechanisms xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-sasl'>
<mechanism>DIGEST-MD5</mechanism>
<mechanism>KERBEROS_V4</mechanism>
</mechanisms>
</stream:features>
Step 4: Server1 selects an authentication mechanism:
<auth xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-sasl'
mechanism='DIGEST-MD5'/>
Step 5: Server2 sends a [BASE64] (Josefsson, S., “The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data Encodings,” July 2003.) encoded challenge to Server1:
<challenge xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-sasl'> cmVhbG09InNvbWVyZWFsbSIsbm9uY2U9Ik9BNk1HOXRFUUdtMmhoIixxb3A9 ImF1dGgiLGNoYXJzZXQ9dXRmLTgsYWxnb3JpdGhtPW1kNS1zZXNz </challenge>
The decoded challenge is:
realm="somerealm",nonce="OA6MG9tEQGm2hh",\ qop="auth",charset=utf-8,algorithm=md5-sess
Step 5 (alt): Server2 returns error to Server1:
<failure xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-sasl'> <incorrect-encoding/> </failure> </stream:stream>
Step 6: Server1 sends a [BASE64] (Josefsson, S., “The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data Encodings,” July 2003.) encoded response to the challenge:
<response xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-sasl'> dXNlcm5hbWU9ImV4YW1wbGUub3JnIixyZWFsbT0ic29tZXJlYWxtIixub25j ZT0iT0E2TUc5dEVRR20yaGgiLGNub25jZT0iT0E2TUhYaDZWcVRyUmsiLG5j PTAwMDAwMDAxLHFvcD1hdXRoLGRpZ2VzdC11cmk9InhtcHAvZXhhbXBsZS5v cmciLHJlc3BvbnNlPWQzODhkYWQ5MGQ0YmJkNzYwYTE1MjMyMWYyMTQzYWY3 LGNoYXJzZXQ9dXRmLTgK </response>
The decoded response is:
username="example.org",realm="somerealm",\ nonce="OA6MG9tEQGm2hh",cnonce="OA6MHXh6VqTrRk",\ nc=00000001,qop=auth,digest-uri="xmpp/example.org",\ response=d388dad90d4bbd760a152321f2143af7,charset=utf-8
Step 7: Server2 sends another [BASE64] (Josefsson, S., “The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data Encodings,” July 2003.) encoded challenge to Server1:
<challenge xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-sasl'> cnNwYXV0aD1lYTQwZjYwMzM1YzQyN2I1NTI3Yjg0ZGJhYmNkZmZmZAo= </challenge>
The decoded challenge is:
rspauth=ea40f60335c427b5527b84dbabcdfffd
Step 7 (alt): Server2 returns error to Server1:
<failure xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-sasl'> <invalid-authzid/> </failure> </stream:stream>
Step 8: Server1 responds to the challenge:
<response xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-sasl'/>
Step 8 (alt): Server1 aborts negotiation:
<abort xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-sasl'/>
Step 9: Server2 informs Server1 of successful authentication:
<success xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-sasl'/>
Step 9 (alt): Server2 informs Server1 of failed authentication:
<failure xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-sasl'> <aborted/> </failure> </stream:stream>
Step 10: Server1 initiates a new stream to Server2:
<stream:stream
xmlns='jabber:server'
xmlns:stream='http://etherx.jabber.org/streams'
to='example.com'
version='1.0'>
Step 11: Server2 responds by sending a stream header to Server1 along with any additional features (or an empty features element):
<stream:stream
xmlns='jabber:server'
xmlns:stream='http://etherx.jabber.org/streams'
from='example.com'
id='s2s_345'
version='1.0'>
<stream:features/>
| TOC |
After SASL negotiation (Use of SASL) with the receiving entity, the initiating entity MAY want or need to bind a specific resource to that stream. In general this applies only to clients: in order to conform to the addressing format (Addressing Scheme) and stanza delivery rules (Server Rules for Handling XML Stanzas) specified herein, there MUST be a resource identifier associated with the <node@domain> of the client (which is either generated by the server or provided by the client application); this ensures that the address for use over that stream is a "full JID" of the form <node@domain/resource>.
Upon receiving a success indication within the SASL negotiation, the client MUST send a new stream header to the server, to which the server MUST respond with a stream header as well as a list of available stream features. Specifically, if the server requires the client to bind a resource to the stream after successful SASL negotiation, it MUST include an empty <bind/> element qualified by the 'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-bind' namespace in the stream features list it presents to the client upon sending the header for the response stream sent after successful SASL negotiation (but not before):
Server advertises resource binding feature to client:
<stream:stream
xmlns='jabber:client'
xmlns:stream='http://etherx.jabber.org/streams'
id='c2s_345'
from='example.com'
version='1.0'>
<stream:features>
<bind xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-bind'/>
</stream:features>
Upon being so informed that resource binding is required, the client MUST bind a resource to the stream by sending to the server an IQ stanza of type "set" (see IQ Semantics (IQ Semantics)) containing data qualified by the 'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-bind' namespace.
If the client wishes to allow the server to generate the resource identifier on its behalf, it sends an IQ stanza of type "set" that contains an empty <bind/> element:
Client asks server to bind a resource:
<iq type='set' id='bind_1'> <bind xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-bind'/> </iq>
A server that supports resource binding MUST be able to generate a resource identifier on behalf of a client. A resource identifier generated by the server MUST be unique for that <node@domain>.
If the client wishes to specify the resource identifier, it sends an IQ stanza of type "set" that contains the desired resource identifier as the XML character data of a <resource/> element that is a child of the <bind/> element:
Client binds a resource:
<iq type='set' id='bind_2'>
<bind xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-bind'>
<resource>someresource</resource>
</bind>
</iq>
Once the server has generated a resource identifier for the client or accepted the resource identifier provided by the client, it MUST return an IQ stanza of type "result" to the client, which MUST include a <jid/> child element that specifies the full JID for the connected resource as determined by the server:
Server informs client of successful resource binding:
<iq type='result' id='bind_2'>
<bind xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-bind'>
<jid>somenode@example.com/someresource</jid>
</bind>
</iq>
A server SHOULD accept the resource identifier provided by the client, but MAY override it with a resource identifier that the server generates; in this case, the server SHOULD NOT return a stanza error (e.g., <forbidden/>) to the client but instead SHOULD communicate the generated resource identifier to the client in the IQ result as shown above.
When a client supplies a resource identifier, the following stanza error conditions are possible (see Stanza Errors (Stanza Errors)):
The protocol for these error conditions is shown below.
Resource identifier cannot be processed:
<iq type='error' id='bind_2'>
<bind xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-bind'>
<resource>someresource</resource>
</bind>
<error type='modify'>
<bad-request xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-stanzas'/>
</error>
</iq>
Client is not allowed to bind a resource:
<iq type='error' id='bind_2'>
<bind xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-bind'>
<resource>someresource</resource>
</bind>
<error type='cancel'>
<not-allowed xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-stanzas'/>
</error>
</iq>
Resource identifier is in use:
<iq type='error' id='bind_2'>
<bind xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-bind'>
<resource>someresource</resource>
</bind>
<error type='cancel'>
<conflict xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-stanzas'/>
</error>
</iq>
If, before completing the resource binding step, the client attempts to send an XML stanza other than an IQ stanza with a <bind/> child qualified by the 'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-bind' namespace, the server MUST NOT process the stanza and SHOULD return a <not-authorized/> stanza error to the client.
| TOC |
| TOC |
The Jabber protocols from which XMPP was adapted include a "server dialback" method for protecting against domain spoofing, thus making it more difficult to spoof XML stanzas. Server dialback is not a security mechanism, and results in weak verification of server identities only (see Server-to-Server Communications (Server-to-Server Communications) regarding this method's security characteristics). Domains requiring robust security SHOULD use TLS and SASL; see Server-to-Server Communications (Server-to-Server Communications) for details. If SASL is used for server-to-server authentication, dialback SHOULD NOT be used since it is unnecessary. Documentation of dialback is included mainly for the sake of backward-compatibility with existing implementations and deployments.
The server dialback method is made possible by the existence of the Domain Name System (DNS), since one server can (normally) discover the authoritative server for a given domain. Because dialback depends on DNS, inter-domain communications MUST NOT proceed until the Domain Name System (DNS) hostnames asserted by the servers have been resolved (see Server-to-Server Communications (Server-to-Server Communications)).
Server dialback is uni-directional, and results in (weak) verification of identities for one stream in one direction. Because server dialback is not an authentication mechanism, mutual authentication is not possible via dialback. Therefore, server dialback MUST be completed in each direction in order to enable bi-directional communications between two domains.
The method for generating and verifying the keys used in server dialback MUST take into account the hostnames being used, the stream ID generated by the receiving server, and a secret known by the authoritative server's network. The stream ID is security-critical in server dialback and therefore MUST be both unpredictable and non-repeating (see [RANDOM] (Eastlake, D., Crocker, S., and J. Schiller, “Randomness Recommendations for Security,” December 1994.) for recommendations regarding randomness for security purposes).
Any error that occurs during dialback negotiation MUST be considered a stream error, resulting in termination of the stream and of the underlying TCP connection. The possible error conditions are specified in the protocol description below.
The following terminology applies:
| TOC |
The following is a brief summary of the order of events in dialback:
We can represent this flow of events graphically as follows:
Originating Receiving
Server Server
----------- ---------
| |
| establish connection |
| ----------------------> |
| |
| send stream header |
| ----------------------> |
| |
| send stream header |
| <---------------------- |
| | Authoritative
| send dialback key | Server
| ----------------------> | -------------
| | |
| establish connection |
| ----------------------> |
| |
| send stream header |
| ----------------------> |
| |
| send stream header |
| <---------------------- |
| |
| send verify request |
| ----------------------> |
| |
| send verify response |
| <---------------------- |
|
| report dialback result |
| <---------------------- |
| |
| TOC |
The detailed protocol interaction between the servers is as follows:
<stream:stream
xmlns:stream='http://etherx.jabber.org/streams'
xmlns='jabber:server'
xmlns:db='jabber:server:dialback'>
Note: The 'to' and 'from' attributes are OPTIONAL on the root stream element. The inclusion of the xmlns:db namespace declaration with the name shown indicates to the Receiving Server that the Originating Server supports dialback. If the namespace name is incorrect, then the Receiving Server MUST generate an <invalid-namespace/> stream error condition and terminate both the XML stream and the underlying TCP connection.
<stream:stream
xmlns:stream='http://etherx.jabber.org/streams'
xmlns='jabber:server'
xmlns:db='jabber:server:dialback'
id='457F9224A0...'>
Note: The 'to' and 'from' attributes are OPTIONAL on the root stream element. If the namespace name is incorrect, then the Originating Server MUST generate an <invalid-namespace/> stream error condition and terminate both the XML stream and the underlying TCP connection. Note well that the Receiving Server SHOULD reply but MAY silently terminate the XML stream and underlying TCP connection depending on security policies in place; however, if the Receiving Server desires to proceed, it MUST send a stream header back to the Originating Server.
<db:result
to='Receiving Server'
from='Originating Server'>
98AF014EDC0...
</db:result>
Note: This key is not examined by the Receiving Server, since the Receiving Server does not keep information about the Originating Server between sessions. The key generated by the Originating Server MUST be based in part on the value of the ID provided by the Receiving Server in the previous step, and in part on a secret shared by the Originating Server and the Authoritative Server. If the value of the 'to' address does not match a hostname recognized by the Receiving Server, then the Receiving Server MUST generate a <host-unknown/> stream error condition and terminate both the XML stream and the underlying TCP connection. If the value of the 'from' address matches a domain with which the Receiving Server already has an established connection, then the Receiving Server MUST maintain the existing connection until it validates whether the new connection is legitimate; additionally, the Receiving Server MAY choose to generate a <not-authorized/> stream error condition for the new connection and then terminate both the XML stream and the underlying TCP connection related to the new request.
<stream:stream
xmlns:stream='http://etherx.jabber.org/streams'
xmlns='jabber:server'
xmlns:db='jabber:server:dialback'>
Note: The 'to' and 'from' attributes are OPTIONAL on the root stream element. If the namespace name is incorrect, then the Authoritative Server MUST generate an <invalid-namespace/> stream error condition and terminate both the XML stream and the underlying TCP connection.
<stream:stream
xmlns:stream='http://etherx.jabber.org/streams'
xmlns='jabber:server'
xmlns:db='jabber:server:dialback'
id='1251A342B...'>
Note: If the namespace name is incorrect, then the Receiving Server MUST generate an <invalid-namespace/> stream error condition and terminate both the XML stream and the underlying TCP connection between it and the Authoritative Server. If a stream error occurs between the Receiving Server and the Authoritative Server, then the Receiving Server MUST generate a <remote-connection-failed/> stream error condition and terminate both the XML stream and the underlying TCP connection between it and the Originating Server.
<db:verify
from='Receiving Server'
to='Originating Server'
id='457F9224A0...'>
98AF014EDC0...
</db:verify>
Note: Passed here are the hostnames, the original identifier from the Receiving Server's stream header to the Originating Server in Step 3, and the key that the Originating Server sent to the Receiving Server in Step 4. Based on this information, as well as shared secret information within the Authoritative Server's network, the key is verified. Any verifiable method MAY be used to generate the key. If the value of the 'to' address does not match a hostname recognized by the Authoritative Server, then the Authoritative Server MUST generate a <host-unknown/> stream error condition and terminate both the XML stream and the underlying TCP connection. If the value of the 'from' address does not match the hostname represented by the Receiving Server when opening the TCP connection (or any validated domain thereof, such as a validated subdomain of the Receiving Server's hostname or another validated domain hosted by the Receiving Server), then the Authoritative Server MUST generate an <invalid-from/> stream error condition and terminate both the XML stream and the underlying TCP connection.
<db:verify
from='Originating Server'
to='Receiving Server'
type='valid'
id='457F9224A0...'/>
<db:verify
from='Originating Server'
to='Receiving Server'
type='invalid'
id='457F9224A0...'/>
Note: If the ID does not match that provided by the Receiving Server in Step 3, then the Receiving Server MUST generate an <invalid-id/> stream error condition and terminate both the XML stream and the underlying TCP connection. If the value of the 'to' address does not match a hostname recognized by the Receiving Server, then the Receiving Server MUST generate a <host-unknown/> stream error condition and terminate both the XML stream and the underlying TCP connection. If the value of the 'from' address does not match the hostname represented by the Originating Server when opening the TCP connection (or any validated domain thereof, such as a validated subdomain of the Originating Server's hostname or another validated domain hosted by the Originating Server), then the Receiving Server MUST generate an <invalid-from/> stream error condition and terminate both the XML stream and the underlying TCP connection. After returning the verification to the Receiving Server, the Authoritative Server SHOULD terminate the stream between them.
<db:result
from='Receiving Server'
to='Originating Server'
type='valid'/>
Note: At this point, the connection has either been validated via a type='valid', or reported as invalid. If the connection is invalid, then the Receiving Server MUST terminate both the XML stream and the underlying TCP connection. If the connection is validated, data can be sent by the Originating Server and read by the Receiving Server; before that, all XML stanzas sent to the Receiving Server SHOULD be silently dropped.
The result of the foregoing is that the Receiving Server has verified the identity of the Originating Server, so that the Originating Server can send, and the Receiving Server can accept, XML stanzas over the "initial stream" (i.e., the stream from the Originating Server to the Receiving Server). In order to verify the identities of the entities using the "response stream" (i.e., the stream from the Receiving Server to the Originating Server), dialback MUST be completed in the opposite direction as well.
After successful dialback negotiation, the Receiving Server SHOULD accept subsequent <db:result/> packets (e.g., validation requests sent to a subdomain or other hostname serviced by the Receiving Server) from the Originating Server over the existing validated connection; this enables "piggybacking" of the original validated connection in one direction.
Even if dialback negotiation is successful, a server MUST verify that all XML stanzas received from the other server include a 'from' attribute and a 'to' attribute; if a stanza does not meet this restriction, the server that receives the stanza MUST generate an <improper-addressing/> stream error condition and terminate both the XML stream and the underlying TCP connection. Furthermore, a server MUST verify that the 'from' attribute of stanzas received from the other server includes a validated domain for the stream; if a stanza does not meet this restriction, the server that receives the stanza MUST generate an <invalid-from/> stream error condition and terminate both the XML stream and the underlying TCP connection. Both of these checks help to prevent spoofing related to particular stanzas.
| TOC |
After TLS negotiation (Use of TLS) if desired, SASL negotiation (Use of SASL), and Resource Binding (Resource Binding) if necessary, XML stanzas can be sent over the streams. Three kinds of XML stanza are defined for the 'jabber:client' and 'jabber:server' namespaces: <message/>, <presence/>, and <iq/>. In addition, there are five common attributes for these kinds of stanza. These common attributes, as well as the basic semantics of the three stanza kinds, are defined herein; more detailed information regarding the syntax of XML stanzas in relation to instant messaging and presence applications is provided in [XMPP‑IM] (Saint-Andre, P., “Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging and Presence,” October 2004.).
| TOC |
The following five attributes are common to message, presence, and IQ stanzas:
| TOC |
The 'to' attribute specifies the JID of the intended recipient for the stanza.
In the 'jabber:client' namespace, a stanza SHOULD possess a 'to' attribute, although a stanza sent from a client to a server for handling by that server (e.g., presence sent to the server for broadcasting to other entities) SHOULD NOT possess a 'to' attribute.
In the 'jabber:server' namespace, a stanza MUST possess a 'to' attribute; if a server receives a stanza that does not meet this restriction, it MUST generate an <improper-addressing/> stream error condition and terminate both the XML stream and the underlying TCP connection with the offending server.
If the value of the 'to' attribute is invalid or cannot be contacted, the entity discovering that fact (usually the sender's or recipient's server) MUST return an appropriate error to the sender, setting the 'from' attribute of the error stanza to the value provided in the 'to' attribute of the offending stanza.
| TOC |
The 'from' attribute specifies the JID of the sender.
When a server receives an XML stanza within the context of an authenticated stream qualified by the 'jabber:client' namespace, it MUST do one of the following:
If a client attempts to send an XML stanza for which the value of the 'from' attribute does not match one of the connected resources for that entity, the server SHOULD return an <invalid-from/> stream error to the client. If a client attempts to send an XML stanza over a stream that is not yet authenticated, the server SHOULD return a <not-authorized/> stream error to the client. If generated, both of these conditions MUST result in closure of the stream and termination of the underlying TCP connection; this helps to prevent a denial of service attack launched from a rogue client.
When a server generates a stanza from the server itself for delivery to a connected client (e.g., in the context of data storage services provided by the server on behalf of the client), the stanza MUST either (1) not include a 'from' attribute or (2) include a 'from' attribute whose value is the account's bare JID (<node@domain>) or client's full JID (<node@domain/resource>). A server MUST NOT send to the client a stanza without a 'from' attribute if the stanza was not generated by the server itself. When a client receives a stanza that does not include a 'from' attribute, it MUST assume that the stanza is from the server to which the client is connected.
In the 'jabber:server' namespace, a stanza MUST possess a 'from' attribute; if a server receives a stanza that does not meet this restriction, it MUST generate an <improper-addressing/> stream error condition. Furthermore, the domain identifier portion of the JID contained in the 'from' attribute MUST match the hostname of the sending server (or any validated domain thereof, such as a validated subdomain of the sending server's hostname or another validated domain hosted by the sending server) as communicated in the SASL negotiation or dialback negotiation; if a server receives a stanza that does not meet this restriction, it MUST generate an <invalid-from/> stream error condition. Both of these conditions MUST result in closure of the stream and termination of the underlying TCP connection; this helps to prevent a denial of service attack launched from a rogue server.
| TOC |
The optional 'id' attribute MAY be used by a sending entity for internal tracking of stanzas that it sends and receives (especially for tracking the request-response interaction inherent in the semantics of IQ stanzas). It is OPTIONAL for the value of the 'id' attribute to be unique globally, within a domain, or within a stream. The semantics of IQ stanzas impose additional restrictions; see IQ Semantics (IQ Semantics).
| TOC |
The 'type' attribute specifies detailed information about the purpose or context of the message, presence, or IQ stanza. The particular allowable values for the 'type' attribute vary depending on whether the stanza is a message, presence, or IQ; the values for message and presence stanzas are specific to instant messaging and presence applications and therefore are defined in [XMPP‑IM] (Saint-Andre, P., “Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging and Presence,” October 2004.), whereas the values for IQ stanzas specify the role of an IQ stanza in a structured request-response "conversation" and thus are defined under IQ Semantics (IQ Semantics) below. The only 'type' value common to all three stanzas is "error"; see Stanza Errors (Stanza Errors).
| TOC |
A stanza SHOULD possess an 'xml:lang' attribute (as defined in Section 2.12 of [XML] (Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C., and E. Maler, “Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (2nd ed),” October 2000.)) if the stanza contains XML character data that is intended to be presented to a human user (as explained in RFC 2277 (Alvestrand, H., “IETF Policy on Character Sets and Languages,” January 1998.) [CHARSET], "internationalization is for humans"). The value of the 'xml:lang' attribute specifies the default language of any such human-readable XML character data, which MAY be overridden by the 'xml:lang' attribute of a specific child element. If a stanza does not possess an 'xml:lang' attribute, an implementation MUST assume that the default language is that specified for the stream as defined under Stream Attributes (Stream Attributes) above. The value of the 'xml:lang' attribute MUST be an NMTOKEN and MUST conform to the format defined in RFC 3066 (Alvestrand, H., “Tags for the Identification of Languages,” January 2001.) [LANGTAGS].
| TOC |
| TOC |
The <message/> stanza kind can be seen as a "push" mechanism whereby one entity pushes information to another entity, similar to the communications that occur in a system such as email. All message stanzas SHOULD possess a 'to' attribute that specifies the intended recipient of the message; upon receiving such a stanza, a server SHOULD route or deliver it to the intended recipient (see Server Rules for Handling XML Stanzas (Server Rules for Handling XML Stanzas) for general routing and delivery rules related to XML stanzas).
| TOC |
The <presence/> element can be seen as a basic broadcast or "publish-subscribe" mechanism, whereby multiple entities receive information about an entity to which they have subscribed (in this case, network availability information). In general, a publishing entity SHOULD send a presence stanza with no 'to' attribute, in which case the server to which the entity is connected SHOULD broadcast or multiplex that stanza to all subscribing entities. However, a publishing entity MAY also send a presence stanza with a 'to' attribute, in which case the server SHOULD route or deliver that stanza to the intended recipient. See Server Rules for Handling XML Stanzas (Server Rules for Handling XML Stanzas) for general routing and delivery rules related to XML stanzas, and [XMPP‑IM] (Saint-Andre, P., “Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging and Presence,” October 2004.) for presence-specific rules in the context of an instant messaging and presence application.
| TOC |
Info/Query, or IQ, is a request-response mechanism, similar in some ways to [HTTP] (Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, “Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1,” June 1999.). The semantics of IQ enable an entity to make a request of, and receive a response from, another entity. The data content of the request and response is defined by the namespace declaration of a direct child element of the IQ element, and the interaction is tracked by the requesting entity through use of the 'id' attribute. Thus, IQ interactions follow a common pattern of structured data exchange such as get/result or set/result (although an error may be returned in reply to a request if appropriate):
Requesting Responding
Entity Entity
---------- ----------
| |
| <iq type='get' id='1'> |
| ------------------------> |
| |
| <iq type='result' id='1'> |
| <------------------------ |
| |
| <iq type='set' id='2'> |
| ------------------------> |
| |
| <iq type='error' id='2'> |
| <------------------------ |
| |
In order to enforce these semantics, the following rules apply:
| TOC |
Stanza-related errors are handled in a manner similar to stream errors (Stream Errors). However, unlike stream errors, stanza errors are recoverable; therefore error stanzas include hints regarding actions that the original sender can take in order to remedy the error.
| TOC |
The following rules apply to stanza-related errors:
| TOC |
The syntax for stanza-related errors is as follows:
<stanza-kind to='sender' type='error'>
[RECOMMENDED to include sender XML here]
<error type='error-type'>
<defined-condition xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-stanzas'/>
<text xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-stanzas'
xml:lang='langcode'>
OPTIONAL descriptive text
</text>
[OPTIONAL application-specific condition element]
</error>
</stanza-kind>
The stanza-kind is one of message, presence, or iq.
The value of the <error/> element's 'type' attribute MUST be one of the following:
The <error/> element:
The <text/> element is OPTIONAL. If included, it SHOULD be used only to provide descriptive or diagnostic information that supplements the meaning of a defined condition or application-specific condition. It SHOULD NOT be interpreted programmatically by an application. It SHOULD NOT be used as the error message presented to a user, but MAY be shown in addition to the error message associated with the included condition element (or elements).
Finally, to maintain backward compatibility, the schema (specified in [XMPP‑IM] (Saint-Andre, P., “Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging and Presence,” October 2004.)) allows the optional inclusion of a 'code' attribute on the <error/> element.
| TOC |
The following conditions are defined for use in stanza errors.
| TOC |
As noted, an application MAY provide application-specific stanza error information by including a properly-namespaced child in the error element. The application-specific element SHOULD supplement or further qualify a defined element. Thus, the <error/> element will contain two or three child elements:
<iq type='error' id='some-id'>
<error type='modify'>
<bad-request xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-stanzas'/>
<too-many-parameters xmlns='application-ns'/>
</error>
</iq>
<message type='error' id='another-id'>
<error type='modify'>
<undefined-condition
xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-stanzas'/>
<text xml:lang='en'
xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-stanzas'>
Some special application diagnostic information...
</text>
<special-application-condition xmlns='application-ns'/>
</error>
</message>
| TOC |
Compliant server implementations MUST ensure in-order processing of XML stanzas between any two entities.
Beyond the requirement for in-order processing, each server implementation will contain its own "delivery tree" for handling stanzas it receives. Such a tree determines whether a stanza needs to be routed to another domain, processed internally, or delivered to a resource associated with a connected node. The following rules apply:
| TOC |
If the stanza possesses no 'to' attribute, the server SHOULD process it on behalf of the entity that sent it. Because all stanzas received from other servers MUST possess a 'to' attribute, this rule applies only to stanzas received from a registered entity (such as a client) that is connected to the server. If the server receives a presence stanza with no 'to' attribute, the server SHOULD broadcast it to the entities that are subscribed to the sending entity's presence, if applicable (the semantics of presence broadcast for instant messaging and presence applications are defined in [XMPP‑IM] (Saint-Andre, P., “Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging and Presence,” October 2004.)). If the server receives an IQ stanza of type "get" or "set" with no 'to' attribute and it understands the namespace that qualifies the content of the stanza, it MUST either process the stanza on behalf of sending entity (where the meaning of "process" is determined by the semantics of the qualifying namespace) or return an error to the sending entity.
| TOC |
If the hostname of the domain identifier portion of the JID contained in the 'to' attribute does not match one of the configured hostnames of the server itself or a subdomain thereof, the server SHOULD route the stanza to the foreign domain (subject to local service provisioning and security policies regarding inter-domain communication). There are two possible cases:
- A server-to-server stream already exists between the two domains:
- The sender's server routes the stanza to the authoritative server for the foreign domain over the existing stream
- There exists no server-to-server stream between the two domains:
- The sender's server (1) resolves the hostname of the foreign domain (as defined under Server-to-Server Communications (Server-to-Server Communications)), (2) negotiates a server-to-server stream between the two domains (as defined under Use of TLS (Use of TLS) and Use of SASL (Use of SASL)), and (3) routes the stanza to the authoritative server for the foreign domain over the newly-established stream
If routing to the recipient's server is unsuccessful, the sender's server MUST return an error to the sender; if the recipient's server can be contacted but delivery by the recipient's server to the recipient is unsuccessful, the recipient's server MUST return an error to the sender by way of the sender's server.
| TOC |
If the hostname of the domain identifier portion of the JID contained in the 'to' attribute matches a subdomain of one of the configured hostnames of the server itself, the server MUST either process the stanza itself or route the stanza to a specialized service that is responsible for that subdomain (if the subdomain is configured), or return an error to the sender (if the subdomain is not configured).
| TOC |
If the hostname of the domain identifier portion of the JID contained in the 'to' attribute matches a configured hostname of the server itself and the JID contained in the 'to' attribute is of the form <domain> or <domain/resource>, the server (or a defined resource thereof) MUST either process the stanza as appropriate for the stanza kind or return an error stanza to the sender.
| TOC |
If the hostname of the domain identifier portion of the JID contained in the 'to' attribute matches a configured hostname of the server itself and the JID contained in the 'to' attribute is of the form <node@domain> or <node@domain/resource>, the server SHOULD deliver the stanza to the intended recipient of the stanza as represented by the JID contained in the 'to' attribute. The following rules apply:
| TOC |
| TOC |
XMPP is a simplified and specialized protocol for streaming XML elements in order to exchange structured information in close to real time. Because XMPP does not require the parsing of arbitrary and complete XML documents, there is no requirement that XMPP needs to support the full feature set of [XML] (Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C., and E. Maler, “Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (2nd ed),” October 2000.). In particular, the following restrictions apply.
With regard to XML generation, an XMPP implementation MUST NOT inject into an XML stream any of the following:
With regard to XML processing, if an XMPP implementation receives such restricted XML data, it MUST ignore the data.
| TOC |
XML Namespaces (Bray, T., Hollander, D., and A. Layman, “Namespaces in XML,” January 1999.) [XML‑NAMES] are used within all XMPP-compliant XML to create strict boundaries of data ownership. The basic function of namespaces is to separate different vocabularies of XML elements that are structurally mixed together. Ensuring that XMPP-compliant XML is namespace-aware enables any allowable XML to be structurally mixed with any data element within XMPP. Rules for XML namespace names and prefixes are defined in the following subsections.
| TOC |
A streams namespace declaration is REQUIRED in all XML stream headers. The name of the streams namespace MUST be 'http://etherx.jabber.org/streams'. The element names of the <stream/> element and its <features/> and <error/> children MUST be qualified by the streams namespace prefix in all instances. An implementation SHOULD generate only the 'stream:' prefix for these elements, and for historical reasons MAY accept only the 'stream:' prefix.
| TOC |
A default namespace declaration is REQUIRED and is used in all XML streams in order to define the allowable first-level children of the root stream element. This namespace declaration MUST be the same for the initial stream and the response stream so that both streams are qualified consistently. The default namespace declaration applies to the stream and all stanzas sent within a stream (unless explicitly qualified by another namespace, or by the prefix of the streams namespace or the dialback namespace).
A server implementation MUST support the following two default namespaces (for historical reasons, some implementations MAY support only these two default namespaces):
A client implementation MUST support the 'jabber:client' default namespace, and for historical reasons MAY support only that default namespace.
An implementation MUST NOT generate namespace prefixes for elements in the default namespace if the default namespace is 'jabber:client' or 'jabber:server'. An implementation SHOULD NOT generate namespace prefixes for elements qualified by content (as opposed to stream) namespaces other than 'jabber:client' and 'jabber:server'.
Note: The 'jabber:client' and 'jabber:server' namespaces are nearly identical but are used in different contexts (client-to-server communications for 'jabber:client' and server-to-server communications for 'jabber:server'). The only difference between the two is that the 'to' and 'from' attributes are OPTIONAL on stanzas sent within 'jabber:client', whereas they are REQUIRED on stanzas sent within 'jabber:server'. If a compliant implementation accepts a stream that is qualified by the 'jabber:client' or 'jabber:server' namespace, it MUST support the common attributes (Common Attributes) and basic semantics (Basic Semantics) of all three core stanza kinds (message, presence, and IQ).
| TOC |
A dialback namespace declaration is REQUIRED for all elements used in server dialback (Server Dialback). The name of the dialback namespace MUST be 'jabber:server:dialback'. All elements qualified by this namespace MUST be prefixed. An implementation SHOULD generate only the 'db:' prefix for such elements and MAY accept only the 'db:' prefix.
| TOC |
Except as noted with regard to 'to' and 'from' addresses for stanzas within the 'jabber:server' namespace, a server is not responsible for validating the XML elements forwarded to a client or another server; an implementation MAY choose to provide only validated data elements but this is OPTIONAL (although an implementation MUST NOT accept XML that is not well-formed). Clients SHOULD NOT rely on the ability to send data which does not conform to the schemas, and SHOULD ignore any non-conformant elements or attributes on the incoming XML stream. Validation of XML streams and stanzas is OPTIONAL, and schemas are included herein for descriptive purposes only.
| TOC |
Implementations SHOULD send a text declaration before sending a stream header. Applications MUST follow the rules in [XML] (Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C., and E. Maler, “Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (2nd ed),” October 2000.) regarding the circumstances under which a text declaration is included.
| TOC |
Implementations MUST support the UTF-8 (RFC 3629 (Yergeau, F., “UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646,” November 2003.) [UTF‑8]) transformation of Universal Character Set (ISO/IEC 10646-1 (International Organization for Standardization, “Information Technology - Universal Multiple-octet coded Character Set (UCS) - Amendment 2: UCS Transformation Format 8 (UTF-8),” October 1996.) [UCS2]) characters, as required by RFC 2277 (Alvestrand, H., “IETF Policy on Character Sets and Languages,” January 1998.) [CHARSET]. Implementations MUST NOT attempt to use any other encoding.
| TOC |
This section summarizes the specific aspects of the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol that MUST be supported by servers and clients in order to be considered compliant implementations, as well as additional protocol aspects that SHOULD be supported. For compliance purposes, we draw a distinction between core protocols (which MUST be supported by any server or client, regardless of the specific application) and instant messaging protocols (which MUST be supported only by instant messaging and presence applications built on top of the core protocols). Compliance requirements that apply to all servers and clients are specified in this section; compliance requirements for instant messaging servers and clients are specified in the corresponding section of [XMPP‑IM] (Saint-Andre, P., “Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging and Presence,” October 2004.).
| TOC |
In addition to all defined requirements with regard to security, XML usage, and internationalization, a server MUST support the following core protocols in order to be considered compliant:
In addition, a server MAY support the following core protocol:
| TOC |
A client MUST support the following core protocols in order to be considered compliant:
In addition, a client SHOULD support the following core protocols:
| TOC |
XML streams MUST be encoded in UTF-8 as specified under Character Encoding (Character Encoding). As specified under Stream Attributes (Stream Attributes), an XML stream SHOULD include an 'xml:lang' attribute that is treated as the default language for any XML character data sent over the stream that is intended to be presented to a human user. As specified under xml:lang (xml:lang), an XML stanza SHOULD include an 'xml:lang' attribute if the stanza contains XML character data that is intended to be presented to a human user. A server SHOULD apply the default 'xml:lang' attribute to stanzas it routes or delivers on behalf of connected entities, and MUST NOT modify or delete 'xml:lang' attributes from stanzas it receives from other entities.
| TOC |
| TOC |
For the purposes of XMPP communications (client-to-server and server-to-server), the term "high security" refers to the use of security technologies that provide both mutual authentication and integrity-checking; in particular, when using certificate-based authentication to provide high security, a chain-of-trust SHOULD be established out-of-band, although a shared certificate authority signing certificates could allow a previously unknown certificate to establish trust in-band. See Section 14.2 (Certificate Validation) below regarding certificate validation procedures.
Implementations MUST support high security. Service provisioning SHOULD use high security, subject to local security policies.
| TOC |
When an XMPP peer communicates with another peer securely, it MUST validate the peer's certificate. There are three possible cases:
- Case #1:
- The peer contains an End Entity certificate which appears to be certified by a chain of certificates terminating in a trust anchor (as described in Section 6.1 of [X509] (Housley, R., Polk, W., Ford, W., and D. Solo, “Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Profile,” April 2002.)).
- Case #2:
- The peer certificate is certified by a Certificate Authority not known to the validating peer.
- Case #3:
- The peer certificate is self-signed.
In Case #1, the validating peer MUST do one of two things:
In Case #2 and Case #3, implementations SHOULD act as in (2) above.
| TOC |
A compliant client implementation MUST support both TLS and SASL for connections to a server.
The TLS protocol for encrypting XML streams (defined under Use of TLS (Use of TLS)) provides a reliable mechanism for helping to ensure the confidentiality and data integrity of data exchanged between two entities.
The SASL protocol for authenticating XML streams (defined under Use of SASL (Use of SASL)) provides a reliable mechanism for validating that a client connecting to a server is who it claims to be.
Client-to-server communications MUST NOT proceed until the DNS hostname asserted by the server has been resolved. Such resolutions SHOULD first attempt to resolve the hostname using an [SRV] (Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, “A DNS RR for specifying the location of services (DNS SRV),” February 2000.) Service of "xmpp-client" and Proto of "tcp", resulting in resource records such as "_xmpp-client._tcp.example.com." (the use of the string "xmpp-client" for the service identifier is consistent with the IANA registration). If the SRV lookup fails, the fallback is a normal IPv4/IPv6 address record resolution to determine the IP address, using the "xmpp-client" port 5222, registered with the IANA.
The IP address and method of access of clients MUST NOT be made public by a server, nor are any connections other than the original server connection required. This helps to protect the client's server from direct attack or identification by third parties.
| TOC |
A compliant server implementation MUST support both TLS and SASL for inter-domain communications. For historical reasons, a compliant implementation SHOULD also support Server Dialback (Server Dialback).
Because service provisioning is a matter of policy, it is OPTIONAL for any given domain to communicate with other domains, and server-to-server communications MAY be disabled by the administrator of any given deployment. If a particular domain enables inter-domain communications, it SHOULD enable high security.
Administrators may want to require use of SASL for server-to-server communications in order to ensure both authentication and confidentiality (e.g., on an organization's private network). Compliant implementations SHOULD support SASL for this purpose.
Inter-domain connections MUST NOT proceed until the DNS hostnames asserted by the servers have been resolved. Such resolutions MUST first attempt to resolve the hostname using an [SRV] (Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, “A DNS RR for specifying the location of services (DNS SRV),” February 2000.) Service of "xmpp-server" and Proto of "tcp", resulting in resource records such as "_xmpp-server._tcp.example.com." (the use of the string "xmpp-server" for the service identifier is consistent with the IANA registration; note well that the "xmpp-server" service identifier supersedes the earlier use of a "jabber" service identifier, since the earlier usage did not conform to [SRV] (Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, “A DNS RR for specifying the location of services (DNS SRV),” February 2000.); implementations desiring to be backward compatible should continue to look for or answer to the "jabber" service identifier as well). If the SRV lookup fails, the fallback is a normal IPv4/IPv6 address record resolution to determine the IP address, using the "xmpp-server" port 5269, registered with the IANA.
Server dialback helps protect against domain spoofing, thus making it more difficult to spoof XML stanzas. It is not a mechanism for authenticating, securing, or encrypting streams between servers as is done via SASL and TLS, and results in weak verification of server identities only. Furthermore, it is susceptible to DNS poisoning attacks unless DNSSec (Eastlake, D., “Domain Name System Security Extensions,” March 1999.) [DNSSEC] is used, and even if the DNS information is accurate, dialback cannot protect from attacks where the attacker is capable of hijacking the IP address of the remote domain. Domains requiring robust security SHOULD use TLS and SASL. If SASL is used for server-to-server authentication, dialback SHOULD NOT be used since it is unnecessary.
| TOC |
The order of layers in which protocols MUST be stacked is as follows:
The rationale for this order is that [TCP] (Postel, J., “Transmission Control Protocol,” September 1981.) is the base connection layer used by all of the protocols stacked on top of TCP, [TLS] (Dierks, T., Allen, C., Treese, W., Karlton, P., Freier, A., and P. Kocher, “The TLS Protocol Version 1.0,” January 1999.) is often provided at the operating system layer, [SASL] (Myers, J., “Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL),” October 1997.) is often provided at the application layer, and XMPP is the application itself.
| TOC |
The SASL framework does not provide a mechanism to bind SASL authentication to a security layer providing confidentiality and integrity protection that was negotiated at a lower layer. This lack of a "channel binding" prevents SASL from being able to verify that the source and destination end points to which the lower layer's security is bound are equivalent to the end points that SASL is authenticating. If the end points are not identical, the lower layer's security cannot be trusted to protect data transmitted between the SASL authenticated entities. In such a situation, a SASL security layer should be negotiated that effectively ignores the presence of the lower layer security.
| TOC |
At a minimum, all implementations MUST support the following mechanisms:
- for authentication:
- the SASL [DIGEST‑MD5] (Leach, P. and C. Newman, “Using Digest Authentication as a SASL Mechanism,” May 2000.) mechanism
- for confidentiality:
- TLS (using the TLS_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA cipher)
- for both:
- TLS plus SASL EXTERNAL(using the TLS_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA cipher supporting client-side certificates)
| TOC |
Communications using XMPP normally occur over [TCP] (Postel, J., “Transmission Control Protocol,” September 1981.) connections on port 5222 (client-to-server) or port 5269 (server-to-server), as registered with the IANA (see IANA Considerations (IANA Considerations)). Use of these well-known ports allows administrators to easily enable or disable XMPP activity through existing and commonly-deployed firewalls.
| TOC |
Both the client and the server MUST verify any [BASE64] (Josefsson, S., “The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data Encodings,” July 2003.) data received during SASL negotiation. An implementation MUST reject (not ignore) any characters that are not explicitly allowed by the base64 alphabet; this helps to guard against creation of a covert channel that could be used to "leak" information. An implementation MUST NOT break on invalid input and MUST reject any sequence of base64 characters containing the pad ('=') character if that character is included as something other than the last character of the data (e.g., "=AAA" or "BBBB=CCC"); this helps to guard against buffer overflow attacks and other attacks on the implementation. Base 64 encoding visually hides otherwise easily recognized information, such as passwords, but does not provide any computational confidentiality. Base 64 encoding MUST follow the definition in Section 3 of RFC 3548 (Josefsson, S., “The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data Encodings,” July 2003.) [BASE64].
| TOC |
XMPP makes use of the [NAMEPREP] (Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, “Nameprep: A Stringprep Profile for Internationalized Domain Names (IDN),” March 2003.) profile of [STRINGPREP] (Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, “Preparation of Internationalized Strings ("stringprep"),” December 2002.) for processing of domain identifiers; for security considerations related to Nameprep, refer to the appropriate section of [NAMEPREP] (Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, “Nameprep: A Stringprep Profile for Internationalized Domain Names (IDN),” March 2003.).
In addition, XMPP defines two profiles of [STRINGPREP] (Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, “Preparation of Internationalized Strings ("stringprep"),” December 2002.): Nodeprep (Nodeprep) for node identifiers and Resourceprep (Resourceprep) for resource identifiers.
The Unicode and ISO/IEC 10646 repertoires have many characters that look similar. In many cases, users of security protocols might do visual matching, such as when comparing the names of trusted third parties. Because it is impossible to map similar-looking characters without a great deal of context, such as knowing the fonts used, stringprep does nothing to map similar-looking characters together, nor to prohibit some characters because they look like others.
A node identifier can be employed as one part of an entity's address in XMPP. One common usage is as the username of an instant messaging user; another is as the name of a multi-user chat room; many other kinds of entities could use node identifiers as part of their addresses. The security of such services could be compromised based on different interpretations of the internationalized node identifier; for example, a user entering a single internationalized node identifier could access another user's account information, or a user could gain access to an otherwise restricted chat room or service.
A resource identifier can be employed as one part of an entity's address in XMPP. One common usage is as the name for an instant messaging user's connected resource (active session); another is as the nickname of a user in a multi-user chat room; many other kinds of entities could use resource identifiers as part of their addresses. The security of such services could be compromised based on different interpretations of the internationalized resource identifier; for example, a user could attempt to initiate multiple sessions with the same name, or a user could send a message to someone other than the intended recipient in a multi-user chat room.
| TOC |
| TOC |
A URN sub-namespace for TLS-related data in the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) is defined as follows. (This namespace name adheres to the format defined in The IETF XML Registry (Mealling, M., “The IETF XML Registry,” January 2004.) [XML‑REG].)
- URI:
- urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-tls
- Specification:
- RFC 3920
- Description:
- This is the XML namespace name for TLS-related data in the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) as defined by RFC 3920.
- Registrant Contact:
- IETF, XMPP Working Group, <xmppwg@jabber.org>
| TOC |
A URN sub-namespace for SASL-related data in the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) is defined as follows. (This namespace name adheres to the format defined in [XML‑REG] (Mealling, M., “The IETF XML Registry,” January 2004.).)
- URI:
- urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-sasl
- Specification:
- RFC 3920
- Description:
- This is the XML namespace name for SASL-related data in the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) as defined by RFC 3920.
- Registrant Contact:
- IETF, XMPP Working Group, <xmppwg@jabber.org>
| TOC |
A URN sub-namespace for stream-related error data in the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) is defined as follows. (This namespace name adheres to the format defined in [XML‑REG] (Mealling, M., “The IETF XML Registry,” January 2004.).)
- URI:
- urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-streams
- Specification:
- RFC 3920
- Description:
- This is the XML namespace name for stream-related error data in the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) as defined by RFC 3920.
- Registrant Contact:
- IETF, XMPP Working Group, <xmppwg@jabber.org>
| TOC |
A URN sub-namespace for resource binding in the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) is defined as follows. (This namespace name adheres to the format defined in [XML‑REG] (Mealling, M., “The IETF XML Registry,” January 2004.).)
- URI:
- urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-bind
- Specification:
- RFC 3920
- Description:
- This is the XML namespace name for resource binding in the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) as defined by RFC 3920.
- Registrant Contact:
- IETF, XMPP Working Group, <xmppwg@jabber.org>
| TOC |
A URN sub-namespace for stanza-related error data in the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) is defined as follows. (This namespace name adheres to the format defined in [XML‑REG] (Mealling, M., “The IETF XML Registry,” January 2004.).)
- URI:
- urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-stanzas
- Specification:
- RFC 3920
- Description:
- This is the XML namespace name for stanza-related error data in the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) as defined by RFC 3920.
- Registrant Contact:
- IETF, XMPP Working Group, <xmppwg@jabber.org>
| TOC |
The Nodeprep profile of stringprep is defined under Nodeprep (Nodeprep). The IANA has registered Nodeprep in the stringprep profile registry.
Name of this profile:
- Nodeprep
RFC in which the profile is defined:
- RFC 3920
Indicator whether or not this is the newest version of the profile:
- This is the first version of Nodeprep
| TOC |
The Resourceprep profile of stringprep is defined under Resourceprep (Resourceprep). The IANA has registered Resourceprep in the stringprep profile registry.
Name of this profile:
- Resourceprep
RFC in which the profile is defined:
- RFC 3920
Indicator whether or not this is the newest version of the profile:
- This is the first version of Resourceprep
| TOC |
The IANA has registered "xmpp" as a GSSAPI (Linn, J., “Generic Security Service Application Program Interface Version 2, Update 1,” January 2000.) [GSS‑API] service name, as defined under SASL Definition (SASL Definition).
| TOC |
The IANA has registered "xmpp-client" and "xmpp-server" as keywords for [TCP] (Postel, J., “Transmission Control Protocol,” September 1981.) ports 5222 and 5269 respectively.
These ports SHOULD be used for client-to-server and server-to-server communications respectively, but their use is OPTIONAL.
| TOC |
| TOC |
| TOC |
| TOC |
| TOC |
This appendix defines the "Nodeprep" profile of [STRINGPREP] (Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, “Preparation of Internationalized Strings ("stringprep"),” December 2002.). As such, it specifies processing rules that will enable users to enter internationalized node identifiers in the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) and have the highest chance of getting the content of the strings correct. (An XMPP node identifier is the optional portion of an XMPP address that precedes a domain identifier and the '@' separator; it is often but not exclusively associated with an instant messaging username.) These processing rules are intended only for XMPP node identifiers and are not intended for arbitrary text or any other aspect of an XMPP address.
This profile defines the following, as required by [STRINGPREP] (Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, “Preparation of Internationalized Strings ("stringprep"),” December 2002.):
| TOC |
This profile uses Unicode 3.2 with the list of unassigned code points being Table A.1, both defined in Appendix A of [STRINGPREP] (Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, “Preparation of Internationalized Strings ("stringprep"),” December 2002.).
| TOC |
This profile specifies mapping using the following tables from [STRINGPREP] (Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, “Preparation of Internationalized Strings ("stringprep"),” December 2002.):
- Table B.1
- Table B.2
| TOC |
This profile specifies the use of Unicode normalization form KC, as described in [STRINGPREP] (Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, “Preparation of Internationalized Strings ("stringprep"),” December 2002.).
| TOC |
This profile specifies the prohibition of using the following tables from [STRINGPREP] (Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, “Preparation of Internationalized Strings ("stringprep"),” December 2002.).
- Table C.1.1
- Table C.1.2
- Table C.2.1
- Table C.2.2
- Table C.3
- Table C.4
- Table C.5
- Table C.6
- Table C.7
- Table C.8
- Table C.9
In addition, the following Unicode characters are also prohibited:
- #x22 (")
- #x26 (&)
- #x27 (')
- #x2F (/)
- #x3A (:)
- #x3C (<)
- #x3E (>)
- #x40 (@)
| TOC |
This profile specifies checking bidirectional strings, as described in Section 6 of [STRINGPREP] (Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, “Preparation of Internationalized Strings ("stringprep"),” December 2002.).
| TOC |
| TOC |
This appendix defines the "Resourceprep" profile of [STRINGPREP] (Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, “Preparation of Internationalized Strings ("stringprep"),” December 2002.). As such, it specifies processing rules that will enable users to enter internationalized resource identifiers in the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) and have the highest chance of getting the content of the strings correct. (An XMPP resource identifier is the optional portion of an XMPP address that follows a domain identifier and the '/' separator; it is often but not exclusively associated with an instant messaging session name.) These processing rules are intended only for XMPP resource identifiers and are not intended for arbitrary text or any other aspect of an XMPP address.
This profile defines the following, as required by [STRINGPREP] (Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, “Preparation of Internationalized Strings ("stringprep"),” December 2002.):
| TOC |
This profile uses Unicode 3.2 with the list of unassigned code points being Table A.1, both defined in Appendix A of [STRINGPREP] (Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, “Preparation of Internationalized Strings ("stringprep"),” December 2002.).
| TOC |
This profile specifies mapping using the following tables from [STRINGPREP] (Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, “Preparation of Internationalized Strings ("stringprep"),” December 2002.):
- Table B.1
| TOC |
This profile specifies the use of Unicode normalization form KC, as described in [STRINGPREP] (Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, “Preparation of Internationalized Strings ("stringprep"),” December 2002.).
| TOC |
This profile specifies the prohibition of using the following tables from [STRINGPREP] (Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, “Preparation of Internationalized Strings ("stringprep"),” December 2002.).
- Table C.1.2
- Table C.2.1
- Table C.2.2
- Table C.3
- Table C.4
- Table C.5
- Table C.6
- Table C.7
- Table C.8
- Table C.9
| TOC |
This profile specifies checking bidirectional strings, as described in Section 6 of [STRINGPREP] (Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, “Preparation of Internationalized Strings ("stringprep"),” December 2002.).
| TOC |
The following XML schemas are descriptive, not normative. For schemas defining the 'jabber:client' and 'jabber:server' namespaces, refer to [XMPP‑IM] (Saint-Andre, P., “Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging and Presence,” October 2004.).
| TOC |
<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<xs:schema
xmlns:xs='http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema'
targetNamespace='http://etherx.jabber.org/streams'
xmlns='http://etherx.jabber.org/streams'
elementFormDefault='unqualified'>
<xs:element name='stream'>
<xs:complexType>
<xs:sequence xmlns:client='jabber:client'
xmlns:server='jabber:server'
xmlns:db='jabber:server:dialback'>
<xs:element ref='features' minOccurs='0' maxOccurs='1'/>
<xs:any namespace='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-tls'
minOccurs='0'
maxOccurs='unbounded'/>
<xs:any namespace='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-sasl'
minOccurs='0'
maxOccurs='unbounded'/>
<xs:choice minOccurs='0' maxOccurs='1'>
<xs:choice minOccurs='0' maxOccurs='unbounded'>
<xs:element ref='client:message'/>
<xs:element ref='client:presence'/>
<xs:element ref='client:iq'/>
</xs:choice>
<xs:choice minOccurs='0' maxOccurs='unbounded'>
<xs:element ref='server:message'/>
<xs:element ref='server:presence'/>
<xs:element ref='server:iq'/>
<xs:element ref='db:result'/>
<xs:element ref='db:verify'/>
</xs:choice>
</xs:choice>
<xs:element ref='error' minOccurs='0' maxOccurs='1'/>
</xs:sequence>
<xs:attribute name='from' type='xs:string' use='optional'/>
<xs:attribute name='id' type='xs:NMTOKEN' use='optional'/>
<xs:attribute name='to' type='xs:string' use='optional'/>
<xs:attribute name='version' type='xs:decimal' use='optional'/>
<xs:attribute ref='xml:lang' use='optional'/>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
<xs:element name='features'>
<xs:complexType>
<xs:all xmlns:tls='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-tls'
xmlns:sasl='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-sasl'
xmlns:bind='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-bind'
xmlns:sess='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-session'>
<xs:element ref='tls:starttls' minOccurs='0'/>
<xs:element ref='sasl:mechanisms' minOccurs='0'/>
<xs:element ref='bind:bind' minOccurs='0'/>
<xs:element ref='sess:session' minOccurs='0'/>
</xs:all>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
<xs:element name='error'>
<xs:complexType>
<xs:sequence xmlns:err='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-streams'>
<xs:group ref='err:streamErrorGroup'/>
<xs:element ref='err:text'
minOccurs='0'
maxOccurs='1'/>
</xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
</xs:schema>
| TOC |
<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<xs:schema
xmlns:xs='http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema'
targetNamespace='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-streams'
xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-streams'
elementFormDefault='qualified'>
<xs:element name='bad-format' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='bad-namespace-prefix' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='conflict' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='connection-timeout' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='host-gone' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='host-unknown' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='improper-addressing' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='internal-server-error' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='invalid-from' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='invalid-id' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='invalid-namespace' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='invalid-xml' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='not-authorized' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='policy-violation' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='remote-connection-failed' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='resource-constraint' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='restricted-xml' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='see-other-host' type='xs:string'/>
<xs:element name='system-shutdown' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='undefined-condition' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='unsupported-encoding' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='unsupported-stanza-type' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='unsupported-version' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='xml-not-well-formed' type='empty'/>
<xs:group name='streamErrorGroup'>
<xs:choice>
<xs:element ref='bad-format'/>
<xs:element ref='bad-namespace-prefix'/>
<xs:element ref='conflict'/>
<xs:element ref='connection-timeout'/>
<xs:element ref='host-gone'/>
<xs:element ref='host-unknown'/>
<xs:element ref='improper-addressing'/>
<xs:element ref='internal-server-error'/>
<xs:element ref='invalid-from'/>
<xs:element ref='invalid-id'/>
<xs:element ref='invalid-namespace'/>
<xs:element ref='invalid-xml'/>
<xs:element ref='not-authorized'/>
<xs:element ref='policy-violation'/>
<xs:element ref='remote-connection-failed'/>
<xs:element ref='resource-constraint'/>
<xs:element ref='restricted-xml'/>
<xs:element ref='see-other-host'/>
<xs:element ref='system-shutdown'/>
<xs:element ref='undefined-condition'/>
<xs:element ref='unsupported-encoding'/>
<xs:element ref='unsupported-stanza-type'/>
<xs:element ref='unsupported-version'/>
<xs:element ref='xml-not-well-formed'/>
</xs:choice>
</xs:group>
<xs:element name='text'>
<xs:complexType>
<xs:simpleContent>
<xs:extension base='xs:string'>
<xs:attribute ref='xml:lang' use='optional'/>
</xs:extension>
</xs:simpleContent>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
<xs:simpleType name='empty'>
<xs:restriction base='xs:string'>
<xs:enumeration value=''/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
</xs:schema>
| TOC |
<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<xs:schema
xmlns:xs='http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema'
targetNamespace='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-tls'
xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-tls'
elementFormDefault='qualified'>
<xs:element name='starttls'>
<xs:complexType>
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element
name='required'
minOccurs='0'
maxOccurs='1'
type='empty'/>
</xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
<xs:element name='proceed' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='failure' type='empty'/>
<xs:simpleType name='empty'>
<xs:restriction base='xs:string'>
<xs:enumeration value=''/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
</xs:schema>
| TOC |
<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<xs:schema
xmlns:xs='http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema'
targetNamespace='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-sasl'
xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-sasl'
elementFormDefault='qualified'>
<xs:element name='mechanisms'>
<xs:complexType>
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element name='mechanism'
maxOccurs='unbounded'
type='xs:string'/>
</xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
<xs:element name='auth'>
<xs:complexType>
<xs:simpleContent>
<xs:extension base='empty'>
<xs:attribute name='mechanism'
type='xs:string'
use='optional'/>
</xs:extension>
</xs:simpleContent>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
<xs:element name='challenge' type='xs:string'/>
<xs:element name='response' type='xs:string'/>
<xs:element name='abort' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='success' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='failure'>
<xs:complexType>
<xs:choice minOccurs='0'>
<xs:element name='aborted' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='incorrect-encoding' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='invalid-authzid' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='invalid-mechanism' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='mechanism-too-weak' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='not-authorized' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='temporary-auth-failure' type='empty'/>
</xs:choice>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
<xs:simpleType name='empty'>
<xs:restriction base='xs:string'>
<xs:enumeration value=''/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
</xs:schema>
| TOC |
<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<xs:schema
xmlns:xs='http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema'
targetNamespace='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-bind'
xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-bind'
elementFormDefault='qualified'>
<xs:element name='bind'>
<xs:complexType>
<xs:choice minOccurs='0' maxOccurs='1'>
<xs:element name='resource' type='xs:string'/>
<xs:element name='jid' type='xs:string'/>
</xs:choice>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
</xs:schema>
| TOC |
<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<xs:schema
xmlns:xs='http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema'
targetNamespace='jabber:server:dialback'
xmlns='jabber:server:dialback'
elementFormDefault='qualified'>
<xs:element name='result'>
<xs:complexType>
<xs:simpleContent>
<xs:extension base='xs:token'>
<xs:attribute name='from' type='xs:string' use='required'/>
<xs:attribute name='to' type='xs:string' use='required'/>
<xs:attribute name='type' use='optional'>
<xs:simpleType>
<xs:restriction base='xs:NCName'>
<xs:enumeration value='invalid'/>
<xs:enumeration value='valid'/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
</xs:attribute>
</xs:extension>
</xs:simpleContent>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
<xs:element name='verify'>
<xs:complexType>
<xs:simpleContent>
<xs:extension base='xs:token'>
<xs:attribute name='from' type='xs:string' use='required'/>
<xs:attribute name='id' type='xs:NMTOKEN' use='required'/>
<xs:attribute name='to' type='xs:string' use='required'/>
<xs:attribute name='type' use='optional'>
<xs:simpleType>
<xs:restriction base='xs:NCName'>
<xs:enumeration value='invalid'/>
<xs:enumeration value='valid'/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
</xs:attribute>
</xs:extension>
</xs:simpleContent>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
</xs:schema>
| TOC |
<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<xs:schema
xmlns:xs='http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema'
targetNamespace='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-stanzas'
xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-stanzas'
elementFormDefault='qualified'>
<xs:element name='bad-request' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='conflict' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='feature-not-implemented' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='forbidden' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='gone' type='xs:string'/>
<xs:element name='internal-server-error' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='item-not-found' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='jid-malformed' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='not-acceptable' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='not-allowed' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='payment-required' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='recipient-unavailable' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='redirect' type='xs:string'/>
<xs:element name='registration-required' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='remote-server-not-found' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='remote-server-timeout' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='resource-constraint' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='service-unavailable' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='subscription-required' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='undefined-condition' type='empty'/>
<xs:element name='unexpected-request' type='empty'/>
<xs:group name='stanzaErrorGroup'>
<xs:choice>
<xs:element ref='bad-request'/>
<xs:element ref='conflict'/>
<xs:element ref='feature-not-implemented'/>
<xs:element ref='forbidden'/>
<xs:element ref='gone'/>
<xs:element ref='internal-server-error'/>
<xs:element ref='item-not-found'/>
<xs:element ref='jid-malformed'/>
<xs:element ref='not-acceptable'/>
<xs:element ref='not-allowed'/>
<xs:element ref='payment-required'/>
<xs:element ref='recipient-unavailable'/>
<xs:element ref='redirect'/>
<xs:element ref='registration-required'/>
<xs:element ref='remote-server-not-found'/>
<xs:element ref='remote-server-timeout'/>
<xs:element ref='resource-constraint'/>
<xs:element ref='service-unavailable'/>
<xs:element ref='subscription-required'/>
<xs:element ref='undefined-condition'/>
<xs:element ref='unexpected-request'/>
</xs:choice>
</xs:group>
<xs:element name='text'>
<xs:complexType>
<xs:simpleContent>
<xs:extension base='xs:string'>
<xs:attribute ref='xml:lang' use='optional'/>
</xs:extension>
</xs:simpleContent>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
<xs:simpleType name='empty'>
<xs:restriction base='xs:string'>
<xs:enumeration value=''/>
</xs:restriction>
</xs:simpleType>
</xs:schema>
| TOC |
This section is non-normative.
XMPP has been adapted from the protocols originally developed in the Jabber open-source community, which can be thought of as "XMPP 0.9". Because there exists a large installed base of Jabber implementations and deployments, it may be helpful to specify the key differences between the relevant Jabber protocols and XMPP in order to expedite and encourage upgrades of those implementations and deployments to XMPP. This section summarizes the core differences, while the corresponding section of [XMPP‑IM] (Saint-Andre, P., “Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging and Presence,” October 2004.) summarizes the differences that relate specifically to instant messaging and presence applications.
| TOC |
It was common practice in the Jabber community to use SSL for channel encryption on ports other than 5222 and 5269 (the convention is to use ports 5223 and 5270). XMPP uses TLS over the IANA-registered ports for channel encryption, as defined under Use of TLS (Use of TLS) herein.
| TOC |
The client-server authentication protocol developed in the Jabber community used a basic IQ interaction qualified by the 'jabber:iq:auth' namespace (documentation of this protocol is contained in [JEP‑0078] (Saint-Andre, P., “Non-SASL Authentication,” July 2004.), published by the Jabber Software Foundation (Jabber Software Foundation, “Jabber Software Foundation,” .) [JSF]). XMPP uses SASL for authentication, as defined under Use of SASL (Use of SASL) herein.
The Jabber community did not develop an authentication protocol for server-to-server communications, only the Server Dialback (Server Dialback) protocol to prevent server spoofing. XMPP supersedes Server Dialback with a true server-to-server authentication protocol, as defined under Use of SASL (Use of SASL) herein.
| TOC |
Resource binding in the Jabber community was handled via the 'jabber:iq:auth' namespace (which was also used for client authentication with a server). XMPP defines a dedicated namespace for resource binding as well as the ability for a server to generate a resource identifier on behalf of a client, as defined under Resource Binding (Resource Binding).
| TOC |
JID processing was somewhat loosely defined by the Jabber community (documentation of forbidden characters and case handling is contained in [JEP‑0029] (Kaes, C., “Definition of Jabber Identifiers (JIDs),” October 2003.), published by the Jabber Software Foundation (Jabber Software Foundation, “Jabber Software Foundation,” .) [JSF]). XMPP specifies the use of [NAMEPREP] (Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, “Nameprep: A Stringprep Profile for Internationalized Domain Names (IDN),” March 2003.) for domain identifiers and supplements Nameprep with two additional [STRINGPREP] (Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, “Preparation of Internationalized Strings ("stringprep"),” December 2002.) profiles for JID processing: Nodeprep (Nodeprep) for node identifiers and Resourceprep (Resourceprep) for resource identifiers.
| TOC |
Stream-related errors were handled in the Jabber community via XML character data text in a <stream:error/> element. In XMPP, stream-related errors are handled via an extensible mechanism defined under Stream Errors (Stream Errors) herein.
Stanza-related errors were handled in the Jabber community via HTTP-style error codes. In XMPP, stanza-related errors are handled via an extensible mechanism defined under Stanza Errors (Stanza Errors) herein. (Documentation of a mapping between Jabber and XMPP error handling mechanisms is contained in [JEP‑0086] (Norris, R. and P. Saint-Andre, “Error Condition Mappings,” February 2004.), published by the Jabber Software Foundation (Jabber Software Foundation, “Jabber Software Foundation,” .) [JSF].)
| TOC |
Although use of UTF-8 has always been standard practice within the Jabber community, the community did not define mechanisms for specifying the language of human-readable text provided in XML character data. XMPP specifies the use of the 'xml:lang' attribute in such contexts, as defined under Stream Attributes (Stream Attributes) and xml:lang (xml:lang) herein.
| TOC |
The Jabber community did not include a 'version' attribute in stream headers. XMPP specifies inclusion of that attribute as a way to signal support for the stream features (authentication, encryption, etc.) defined under Version Support (Version Support) herein.
| TOC |
Most of the core aspects of the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol were developed originally within the Jabber open-source community in 1999. This community was founded by Jeremie Miller, who released source code for the initial version of the jabberd server in January 1999. Major early contributors to the base protocol also included Ryan Eatmon, Peter Millard, Thomas Muldowney, and Dave Smith. Work by the XMPP Working Group has concentrated especially on security and internationalization; in these areas, protocols for the use of TLS and SASL were originally contributed by Rob Norris, and stringprep profiles were originally contributed by Joe Hildebrand. The error code syntax was suggested by Lisa Dusseault.
| TOC |
Thanks are due to a number of individuals in addition to the contributors listed. Although it is difficult to provide a complete list, the following individuals were particularly helpful in defining the protocols or in commenting on the specifications in this memo: Thomas Charron, Richard Dobson, Sam Hartman, Schuyler Heath, Jonathan Hogg, Cullen Jennings, Craig Kaes, Jacek Konieczny, Alexey Melnikov, Keith Minkler, Julian Missig, Pete Resnick, Marshall Rose, Alexey Shchepin, Jean-Louis Seguineau, Iain Shigeoka, Greg Troxel, and David Waite. Thanks also to members of the XMPP Working Group and the IETF community for comments and feedback provided throughout the life of this memo.
| TOC |
| Peter Saint-Andre (editor) | |
| Jabber Software Foundation | |
| Email: | stpeter@jabber.org |
| TOC |
Copyright © The Internet Society (2004).
This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an “AS IS” basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society.