Abstract: | This specification defines a convention for trust between XMPP server deployments. |
Authors: | Artur Hefczyc, Florian Jensen, Mickaël Rémond, Peter Saint-Andre, Matthew Wild |
Copyright: | © 1999 - 2011 XMPP Standards Foundation. SEE LEGAL NOTICES. |
Status: | Deferred |
Type: | Standards Track |
Version: | 0.1 |
Last Updated: | 2009-04-30 |
WARNING: Consideration of this document has been Deferred by the XMPP Standards Foundation. Implementation of the protocol described herein is not recommended.
1. Description
2. Security Considerations
3. IANA Considerations
4. XMPP Registrar Considerations
Appendices
A: Document Information
B: Author Information
C: Legal Notices
D: Relation to XMPP
E: Discussion Venue
F: Requirements Conformance
G: Notes
H: Revision History
In XMPP, rosters and presence subscriptions have been used to date only among IM users (see XMPP IM [1]). However, nothing prevents the application of these concepts to other XMPP entities, such as components and servers. Given that a presence subscription typically indicates some level of trust in a peer, server deployments can use the sharing of XMPP presence information as a way to indicate that a given server has a trust relationship with a peer server. The server might then share certain kinds of additional information only with trusted peers, for example Incident Reporting [2].
To establish a trust relationship with a peer, a server shall send a presence subscription request to the peer, just as is done between XMPP users.
<presence from='montague.lit' to='capulet.lit' type='subscribe'/>
A server MUST NOT send such a presence subscription request unless explicitly requested to do so by the server administrator(s).
Upon receiving such a presence subscription request, the XMPP server software running at the peer MUST prompt the server administrator(s) to approve the request, rather than automatically approving it. Methods for doing so are out of scope for this specification.
If the server administrator(s) approve the request, the peer server shall then inform the originating server that the request has been approved.
<presence from='capulet.lit' to='montague.lit' type='subscribed'/>
The peer SHOULD also send a subscription request to the originating server.
<presence from='capulet.lit' to='montague.lit' type='subscribe'/>
If an XMPP server implementation supports this usage of presence subscriptions, it MUST keep a list of approved entities, which we denote a "server roster". The implementation MAY use that roster for access control purposes defined in other specifications.
To follow.
This document requires no interaction with the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) [3].
This document requires no interaction with the XMPP Registrar [4].
Series: XEP
Number: 0267
Publisher: XMPP Standards Foundation
Status:
Deferred
Type:
Standards Track
Version: 0.1
Last Updated: 2009-04-30
Approving Body: XMPP Council
Dependencies: XMPP Core
Supersedes: None
Superseded By: None
Short Name: NOT_YET_ASSIGNED
Source Control:
HTML
This document in other formats:
XML
PDF
Email:
artur.hefczyc@gmail.com
JabberID:
artur.hefczyc@tigase.org
Email:
admin@flosoft.biz
JabberID:
admin@im.flosoft.biz
Email:
mickael.remond@process-one.net
JabberID:
mremond@process-one.net
Email:
stpeter@jabber.org
JabberID:
stpeter@jabber.org
URI:
https://stpeter.im/
Email:
mwild1@gmail.com
JabberID:
mwild1@jaim.at
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.
The primary venue for discussion of XMPP Extension Protocols is the <standards@xmpp.org> discussion list.
Discussion on other xmpp.org discussion lists might also be appropriate; see <http://xmpp.org/about/discuss.shtml> for a complete list.
Errata can be sent to <editor@xmpp.org>.
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".
1. RFC 6121: Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging and Presence <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6121>.
2. XEP-0268: Incident Reporting <http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0268.html>.
3. The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) is the central coordinator for the assignment of unique parameter values for Internet protocols, such as port numbers and URI schemes. For further information, see <http://www.iana.org/>.
4. The XMPP Registrar maintains a list of reserved protocol namespaces as well as registries of parameters used in the context of XMPP extension protocols approved by the XMPP Standards Foundation. For further information, see <http://xmpp.org/registrar/>.
Note: Older versions of this specification might be available at http://xmpp.org/extensions/attic/
Initial published version.
(psa)First draft, split from the incident reporting proposal.
(ah/fj/psa/mr/mw)END