XEP-0249: Direct MUC Invitations

WARNING: This Standards-Track document is Experimental. Publication as an XMPP Extension Protocol does not imply approval of this proposal by the XMPP Standards Foundation. Implementation of the protocol described herein is encouraged in exploratory implementations, but production systems should not deploy implementations of this protocol until it advances to a status of Draft.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

Multi-User Chat [1] defines a protocol for groupchat over XMPP. That specification includes a method for inviting a contact to a room, where the invitation is mediated by the room itself: the user sends the invitation to the room, which in turn sends it to the contact. Unfortunately, a mediated invitation might not be delivered to the contact, for example if the contact blocks communication with entities not in its roster as specified in Server-Based Privacy Rules [2]. As privacy lists have become more common, MUC invitations have been increasingly blocked at the server side, resulting in an undesirable user experience. Therefore, this specification defines a method for sending an invitation directly from the user to the contact, which re-uses the original 'jabber:x:conference' namespace in use before XEP-0045 was written.

2. How It Works

A user invites a contact to a room by sending a <message/> stanza containing only an <invitation/> element qualified by the 'jabber:x:conference' namespace (see Protocol Namespaces regarding issuance of one or more permanent namespaces).

Example 1. A direct invitation

<message
    from='crone1@shakespeare.lit/desktop'
    to='hecate@shakespeare.lit'>
  <x xmlns='jabber:x:conference'
     jid='darkcave@macbeth.shakespeare.lit'/>
</message>
  

The 'jid' attribute is REQUIRED.

Upon receiving a direct invitation, the contact's client SHOULD present the invitation to the contact so that the contact can accept it or decline it. If the contact accepts the invitation, the contact's client shall join the room as described in XEP-0045. If the contact declines the invitation, it shall silently discard the invitation.

3. Determining Support

If an entity supports the protocol specified herein, it MUST advertise that fact by returning a feature of "jabber:x:conference" in response to Service Discovery [3] information requests (see Protocol Namespaces regarding issuance of one or more permanent namespaces).

Example 2. Service discovery information request

<iq from='crone1@shakespeare.lit/desktop'
    id='disco1'
    to='hecate@shakespeare.lit/broom'
    type='get'>
  <query xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/disco#info'/>
</iq>
  

Example 3. Service discovery information response

<iq from='hecate@shakespeare.lit/broom'
    id='disco1'
    to='crone1@shakespeare.lit/desktop'
    type='result'>
  <query xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/disco#info'>
    ...
    <feature var='jabber:x:conference'/>
    ...
  </query>
</iq>
  

In order for an application to determine whether an entity supports this protocol, where possible it SHOULD use the dynamic, presence-based profile of service discovery defined in Entity Capabilities [4]. However, if an application has not received entity capabilities information from an entity, it SHOULD use explicit service discovery instead.

4. Implementation Notes

Before inviting a contact to a members-only room, a user SHOULD check to see if the contact is already a member and, if not, add the contact to the member list (or ask a room administrator to do so).

If a client receives multiple invitations to the same room (e.g., a mediated invitation as defined in XEP-0045 and a direct invitation as defined here), the client SHOULD present only one of the invitations to a human user. If a client receives an invitation to a room in which the user is already an occupant, the client SHOULD silently discard the invitation.

5. Security Considerations

To follow.

6. IANA Considerations

This document requires no interaction with the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) [5].

7. XMPP Registrar Considerations

8. XML Schema

<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>

<xs:schema
    xmlns:xs='http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema'
    targetNamespace='jabber:x:conference'
    xmlns='jabber:x:conference'
    elementFormDefault='qualified'>

  <xs:element name='x'>
    <xs:complexType>
      <xs:simpleContent>
        <xs:extension base='empty'>
          <xs:attribute
              name='jid'
              type='xs:string'
              use='required'/>
        </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>
  

Appendices

Appendix A: Document Information

Series: XEP
Number: 0249
Publisher: XMPP Standards Foundation
Status: Experimental
Type: Standards Track
Version: 0.1
Last Updated: 2008-09-03
Approving Body: XMPP Council
Dependencies: XMPP Core, XEP-0045
Supersedes: None
Superseded By: None
Short Name: NOT_YET_ASSIGNED
Source Control: HTML  RSS

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 3920) and XMPP IM (RFC 3921) specifications contributed by the XMPP Standards Foundation to the Internet Standards Process, which is managed by the Internet Engineering Task Force in accordance with RFC 2026. Any protocol defined in this document has been developed outside the Internet Standards Process and is to be understood as an extension to XMPP rather than as an evolution, development, or modification of XMPP itself.

Appendix E: Discussion Venue

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

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

Errata may 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

END