XEP-0156: Discovering Alternative XMPP Connection Methods

NOTICE: The protocol defined herein is a Draft Standard of the XMPP Standards Foundation. Implementations are encouraged and the protocol is appropriate for deployment in production systems, but some changes to the protocol are possible before it becomes a Final Standard.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

Although XMPP Core [1] specifies the use of TCP as the method of connecting to an XMPP server, alternative connection methods exist, including the BOSH (XEP-0124) [2] method for which XMPP Over BOSH (XEP-0206) [3] is the XMPP profile, the Jabber HTTP Polling (XEP-0025) [4] method (now deprecated), and less common methods such as Wireless Access Protocol (WAP) [5]. For some of these methods, it is necessary to discover further parameters before connecting, such as the HTTP URL of an alternative connection manager. Currently, if a client application needs to discover alternative connection methods before connecting to an XMPP service, the relevant information needs to be provided manually by a human user, which is cumbersome and error-prone. Thankfully, there are several potential ways to complete this pre-connection service discovery in an automated fashion:

1. Define a WSDL [6] definition (or other XML file format) and a canonical URL for that definition at a domain that offers XMPP services. Unfortunately, this approach requires access to the HTTP server for the domain (and quite possibly to the root directory thereof), which can be difficult for XMPP server administrators to arrange. In addition, it requires a client to retrieve the relevant file via HTTP before performing DNS lookups and XMPP connection; it would be more efficient to use recognized DNS methods since DNS lookups are already required by RFC 6120.

2. Define a way to specify alternative connection methods as part of the existing DNS SRV records (see RFC 2782 [7]) for a domain that offers XMPP services. While this approach sounds promising, it is not feasible since the DNS SRV Target field can be used only to specify domain names and cannot be used to specify full URIs (such as the URL for an HTTP connection manager).

3. Define a way to specify alternative connection methods using the "straightforward NAPTR" (S-NAPTR) profile of the Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (see RFC 3958 [8] and RFC 3401 [9]). Unfortunately, S-NAPTR also does not allow inclusion of full URIs, and thus does not meet the requirements for discovery of alternative connection methods.

4. Define a way to specify alternative connection methods using the "URI-enabled NAPTR" (U-NAPTR) profile of the Dynamic Delegation Discovery System (see RFC 4848 [10]). While this is a valid approach that is worth pursuing, the authors are concerned about the deployability of such an approach given the rarity of support for DDDS and U-NAPTR, especially in client-side applications (the main focus of this specification).

5. Define a way to specify alternative connection methods via properly-formatted DNS TXT records (see RFC 1464 [11]). While this approach requires an update to the DNS records for the server domain, that is usually necessary in order to establish XMPP services in the first place. Furthermore, although there are some perils to be avoided in the use of DNS TXT records (e.g., wildcards), the technology is well understood and widely deployed (e.g., it is used by the Sender Policy Framework and SenderID email server verification technologies).

This document defines a way to encapsulate information about alternative connection methods in DNS TXT resource records. However, the authors will monitor the availability of DDDS-based systems supporting U-NAPTR, and might request deprecation of the DNS TXT methods defined in this document at some point in the future.

2. Record Format

The following format for DNS TXT resource records is specified in RFC 1464:

  <owner> <class> <ttl> <TXT> <"attribute name=attribute value">
  

This document specifies that the following additional rules apply for DNS TXT resource records used to specify alternative connection methods:

1. It is RECOMMENDED for the owner to be "_xmppconnect".
2. The class field SHOULD be IN.
3. The ttl field is OPTIONAL.
4. The attribute name SHOULD begin with the string "_xmpp-client-" or "_xmpp-server-" and SHOULD be registered as described in the XMPP Registrar Considerations section of this document.
5. If the txt-data field contains only an attribute name (i.e., no unquoted "=" character followed by additional characters), the receiving application SHOULD interpret it as indicating the presence of the attribute or feature with no defined value.
6. If the txt-data field contains an unquoted "=" character, it MUST also contain an attribute value.

3. Business Rules

The following business rules apply:

1. TXT lookups MUST be used only as a fallback after the methods specified in RFC 6120 have been exhausted. [12]
2. A domain SHOULD NOT present information in DNS TXT records that is available via the DNS SRV records defined in RFC 6120.
3. The order of DNS TXT records SHOULD NOT be interpreted as significant by the presenting domain or the receiving entity.

4. Examples

The following examples show two DNS TXT resource records: the first indicates support for the XMPP Over BOSH connection method defined in XEP-0124 and XEP-0206 and the second indicates support for WAP connections (the latter connection method is not yet defined).

Example 1. TXT Resource Records

_xmppconnect IN TXT "_xmpp-client-xbosh=https://bosh.jabber.org:5280/bind"
_xmppconnect IN TXT "_xmpp-client-wap=http://wap.jabber.org/connector"
  

5. Security Considerations

It is possible that advertisement of alternative connection methods can introduce security vulnerabilities, since a connecting entity (usually a client) might deliberately seek to connect using the method with the weakest security mechanisms (e.g., no channel encryption or relatively weak authentication). Care needs to be taken in determining which alternative connection methods are appropriate to advertise.

6. IANA Considerations

This document requires no interaction with the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) [13].

7. XMPP Registrar Considerations

<method>
  <name>the name of the attribute to be used in DNS TXT records</name>
  <desc>a natural-language description of the alternative connection method</desc>
  <syntax>the syntax of the DNS TXT record attribute value</syntax>
  <doc>the document in which the alternative connection method is specified</doc>
</method>
      

<method>
  <name>_xmpp-client-httppoll</name>
  <desc>HTTP Polling connection method</desc>
  <syntax>
    The http: or https: URL at which to contact the HTTP Polling connection manager or proxy
  </syntax>
  <doc>XEP-0025</doc>
</method>

<method>
  <name>_xmpp-client-xbosh</name>
  <desc>XMPP Over Bosh connection method</desc>
  <syntax>
    The http: or https: URL at which to contact the HTTP Binding connection manager or proxy
  </syntax>
  <doc>XEP-0206</doc>
</method>
      

Appendices

Appendix A: Document Information

Series: XEP
Number: 0156
Publisher: XMPP Standards Foundation
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Version: 1.0
Last Updated: 2007-06-12
Approving Body: XMPP Council
Dependencies: XMPP Core, RFC 1464
Supersedes: None
Superseded By: None
Short Name: alt-connections
Registry: <http://xmpp.org/registrar/alt-connections.html>
Source Control: HTML
This document in other formats: XML  PDF

Appendix B: Author Information

Appendix C: Legal Notices

Appendix D: Relation to XMPP

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

Appendix E: Discussion Venue

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

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

Given that this XMPP Extension Protocol normatively references IETF technologies, discussion on the <xsf-ietf@xmpp.org> list might also be appropriate.

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

Appendix F: Requirements Conformance

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

Appendix G: Notes

Appendix H: Revision History

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

END