Abstract: | This specification provides a single-request replacement for several activities an XMPP client needs to do at startup. |
Author: | Kevin Smith |
Copyright: | © 1999 – 2018 XMPP Standards Foundation. SEE LEGAL NOTICES. |
Status: | Experimental |
Type: | Standards Track |
Version: | 0.3.0 |
Last Updated: | 2019-01-31 |
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 are advised to carefully consider whether it is appropriate to deploy implementations of this protocol before it advances to a status of Draft.
1. Introduction
2. Requirements
3. Use Cases
3.1. Discovering support
3.2. Performing the bind
3.3. Pipelining
4. Security Considerations
5. IANA Considerations
6. 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
As XMPP has grown more feature-rich over time, more steps have been introduced that clients are likely to perform at startup, e.g. resource binding, archive synchronisation, enabling Carbons. Some of these introduce race conditions - e.g. if a client synchronises the archive before enabling Carbons, it can miss stanzas sent between these events, or if it enables Carbons before synchronising the archive it can receive duplicate messages. It may also cause duplicate messages by combining archive synchronisation and receipt of offline messages, or by receipt of messages addressed to the full JID between resource binding and archive synchronisation. This document provides a mechanism for atomically performing these operations to avoid these race conditions. It also provides information to a client that is generally useful about the state of the archive.
There have been other suggestions of further enhancements to the stream startup process in XEP-0388 (SASL2), and it is expected that in the future some protocol here will be reframed in terms of these facilities, but the core premise of the XEP (that these features are needed, and need enabling together) remains. It may be desirable to make the enabling of features extensible, such that the client can request which features are needed, together, but the current approach should serve as a suitable basis for discussion.
The returning of unread message state to the client relies on the archive having these data, which is a topic for another specification.
A client does not advertise support for bind 2.0. If a server supports bind 2.0, it MUST advertise this in the stream features with a feature named 'bind' in the namespace 'urn:xmpp:bind2:0'.
<stream:features> <bind xmlns='urn:xmpp:bind2:0'/> <bind xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-bind'/> <sm xmlns='urn:xmpp:sm:3'/> </stream:features>
After authentication, a client performs a bind 2.0 by sending an element 'bind' in the samespace 'urn:xmpp:bind2:0'. (Note: this gets rid of manual resource binding altogether. For discussion on standards@)
<bind xmlns='urn:xmpp:bind2:0'/>
When it receives a bind 2.0 on an authenticated not-yet-bound session, the server MUST:
After processing the bind stanza, as above, the server MUST respond with an element of type 'bound' in the namespace 'urn:xmpp:bind2:0', as in the below example
<bound xmlns='urn:xmpp:bind2:0'> <jid>nurse@shakespeare.lit/abtet29a9fu</jid> <latest-id>balisoseb</latest-id> <unreads> <unread jid='romeo@shakespeare.lit' read-id='onuheuhoeu', unread-count='3'/> <unread jid='juliet@shakespeare.lit' read-id='koeunhth29', unread-count='43'/> </unreads> </bound>
Servers SHOULD support the <unreads> feature, but if they do not then the <unreads> element MUST be elided, to distinguish between an empty element (no unread messages) and a missing feature.
A server supporting this specification MUST allow the following initial commands to be pipelined:
[ * pipelining will clearly not work for multi-stage SASL mechanisms, but the initial stage MUST be capable of being pipelined after the stream header, and the post-authentication stream header MUST be able to be pipelined after the final authentication element]
In this way, a client is able to (if using 'xmpps' for avoiding starttls, to be defined elsewhere), on second and subsequent login cache the presence of bind 2.0 in stream features from a previous session, and pipeline the entire stream initialisation process by sending the stream header, followed by auth, followed by a stream header, followed by a bind 2.0 in a single chunk.
Note: also enable acks? discuss on standards@
This specification is mostly a reworking of existing protocol/features. The additional facility provided here is to provide information on the user's archive; as this facility is provided post-authentication and is only providing the user's data to the user, it doesn't introduce new security considerations.
None.
The urn:xmpp:bind2:0 namespace must be registered..
Series: XEP
Number: 0386
Publisher: XMPP Standards Foundation
Status:
Experimental
Type:
Standards Track
Version: 0.3.0
Last Updated: 2019-01-31
Approving Body: XMPP Council
Dependencies: XMPP Core, XMPP IM, XEP-0313, XEP-0280
Supersedes: None
Superseded By: None
Short Name: bind2
Source Control:
HTML
This document in other formats:
XML
PDF
Email:
kevin.smith@isode.com
JabberID:
kevin.smith@isode.com
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.
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".
Note: Older versions of this specification might be available at http://xmpp.org/extensions/attic/
First draft accepted by the XMPP Council.
(XEP Editor: ssw)END