XEP-0150: Use of Entity Tags in XMPP Extensions

Abstract
This document defines best practices for the use of Entity Tags in XMPP extensions.
Authors
  • Joe Hildebrand
  • Peter Saint-Andre
Copyright
© 2005 – 2005 XMPP Standards Foundation. SEE LEGAL NOTICES.
Status

Deferred

WARNING: This document has been automatically Deferred after 12 months of inactivity in its previous Experimental state. Implementation of the protocol described herein is not recommended for production systems. However, exploratory implementations are encouraged to resume the standards process.
Type
Informational
Version
0.2 (2005-08-09)
Document Lifecycle
  1. Experimental
  2. Deferred
  3. Proposed
  4. Active

1. Introduction

When an XMPP instant messaging client connects to its server, it typically retrieves a great deal of information, such as a user's roster, privacy lists, and service discovery information. However, this information may not have changed since the client last retrieved the data. In order to improve client start-up time or conserve bandwidth in certain environments, it would be desirable if the client could cache the information and retrieve it only if it has changed.

Such a mechanism exists as part of RFC 2616 [1] in the form of the Entity Tags, which are included in the ETag and If-None-Match headers used for HTTP caching. Since Stanza Headers and Internet Metadata (XEP-0131) [2] enables an XMPP entity to communicate any HTTP header, it should be possible to re-use existing Entity Tag semantics for caching information sent over an XMPP network. This document defines best practices for such functionality, which could be used between any two XMPP entities that support SHIM headers (though it is envisioned to be most useful for clients that retrieve information from servers and services).

2. Requirements

This document addresses the following requirements:

  1. Enable caching of information sent over an XMPP network (i.e., retrieval of information only if it has changed since it was last retrieved).
  2. Re-use existing HTTP Entity Tag semantics.

3. Concepts and Approach

In HTTP, an "entity" is the information transferred as the payload of a request or response, and an "Entity Tag" is an opaque string that uniquely identifies that payload. For example, when an HTTP server sends an entity in an HTTP response, it can include an ETag header that identifies the payload as cacheable, and the client can cache that entity; in future requests, the client can include the same value in an If-None-Match header and the server will either return an HTTP 304 ("Not Modified") error if the entity has not changed or return the entity in the HTTP response if it has changed. (Note: For information about the semantics of Entity Tags, the ETag header, and the If-None-Match header, refer to Sections 3.11, 14.19, and 14.26 respectively of RFC 2616 [1].)

The basic concept behind XMPP Entity Tag use is semantically equivalent to the use in HTTP (although we use the term "data object" to refer to the payload); this is made possible by a straightforward application of SHIM headers as specified in Stanza Headers and Internet Metadata (XEP-0131) [2]. In the context of an IQ request-response interaction, the responding entity will include an ETag SHIM header in its IQ response (indicating that the data object can be cached), the requesting entity will include that identical value in an If-None-Match SHIM header when it queries the server for the same data object, and the responding entity will return either an IQ result with the changed data object or an IQ error indicating that the data object has not changed.

Here is an example of such a request-response flow (the example is that of roster retrieval):

Example 1. Client Requests Roster
<iq type='get'
    from='juliet@capulet.com/balcony'
    id='roster1'>
 <query xmlns='jabber:iq:roster'/>
</iq>
Example 2. Server Returns Roster Including ETag Header
<iq type='result'
    to='juliet@capulet.com/balcony'
    id='roster1'>
 <query xmlns='jabber:iq:roster'>
    <item jid='romeo@montague.net' name='Romeo'>
      <group>Friends</group>
    </item>
    <item jid='nurse@capulet.com' name='Nurse'>
      <group>Servants</group>
    </item>
    <headers xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/shim'>
      <header name='ETag'>some-long-opaque-string</header>
    </headers>
 </query>
</iq>
Example 3. Client Requests Roster Including If-None-Match Header
<iq type='get'
    from='juliet@capulet.com/balcony'
    id='roster2'>
 <query xmlns='jabber:iq:roster'>
    <headers xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/shim'>
      <header name='If-None-Match'>some-long-opaque-string</header>
    </headers>
 </query>
</iq>

If the responding entity does not understand the If-None-Match header or does not handle Entity Tags for the namespace in the request, it MUST ignore the header and return whatever information it would have returned if the header had not been present.

If the responding entity determines that the requested information has not changed since it was last retrieved by the requesting entity, then it MUST return a <not-modified/> error corresponding to the HTTP 304 error returned by HTTP entities that support the ETag header:

Example 4. Responding Entity Returns Not Modified Error
<iq type='error'
    to='juliet@capulet.com/balcony'
    id='roster2'>
 <query xmlns='jabber:iq:roster'>
    <headers xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/shim'>
      <header name='If-None-Match'>some-long-opaque-string</header>
    </headers>
 </query>
  <error code='304' type='modify'>
    <not-modified xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-stanzas'/>
  </error>
</iq>

Note: The <not-modified/> error condition is not specified as a stanza error condition in RFC 3920 [3] and an error code of 304 was not included in the older Jabber error codes (see Error Condition Mappings (XEP-0086) [4]). However, the <not-modified/> error condition is included in XMPP Core [5].

Note: In HTTP, an Entity Tag may be either "strong" or "weak" (see Section 13.3.3 of RFC 2616 [1]); Entity Tags as used in XMPP extensions MUST be considered strong rather than weak.

Note: The ETag and If-None-Match headers SHOULD be used only in <iq/> stanzas, although they MAY be used in <message/> stanza interactions if IQ request-response semantics are not appropriate, for example in SOAP over XMPP (XEP-0072) [6] and in certain applications that use Data Forms (XEP-0004) [7].

4. Use Cases

4.1 Caching and Retrieving Rosters

As specified in XMPP IM [8], an XMPP instant messaging client will typically store its "roster" (contact list) on the server so that any connecting client for that account can retrieve the roster at will. Since RFC 6121 [8] defines no upper limit on the number of items allowed in the roster, it is possible for a roster to become quite large (e.g., there are known cases of rosters with more than 1,000 items). Therefore a server may support Entity Tag functionality with regard to roster management. The process is as follows.

First, the client requests its roster:

Example 5. Client Requests Roster
<iq type='get'
    from='juliet@capulet.com/balcony'
    id='roster1'>
 <query xmlns='jabber:iq:roster'/>
</iq>

If the server supports Entity Tag functionality for rosters, it SHOULD include an ETag SHIM header in its response (although it MAY decide not to include the header if the roster is deemed to be not worth caching because it is so small):

Example 6. Server Returns Roster Including ETag Header
<iq type='result'
    to='juliet@capulet.com/balcony'
    id='roster1'>
 <query xmlns='jabber:iq:roster'>
    <item jid='romeo@montague.net' name='Romeo'>
      <group>Friends</group>
    </item>
    <item jid='nurse@capulet.com' name='Nurse'>
      <group>Servants</group>
    </item>
    <headers xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/shim'>
      <header name='ETag'>some-long-opaque-string</header>
    </headers>
 </query>
</iq>

The client would then cache that roster and associate the included Entity Tag with that cached copy. In order to subsequently retrieve the roster, the client would include the last known Entity Tag value with the request in an If-None-Match SHIM header:

Example 7. Client Requests Roster, Including If-None-Match Header
<iq type='get'
    from='juliet@capulet.com/balcony'
    id='roster2'>
 <query xmlns='jabber:iq:roster'>
    <headers xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/shim'>
      <header name='If-None-Match'>some-long-opaque-string</header>
    </headers>
 </query>
</iq>

If the roster did not change since the client last retrieved the roster and the server supports Entity Tags for the 'jabber:iq:roster' namespace, the server MUST return a <not-modified/> error:

Example 8. Server Returns Not Modified Error
<iq type='error'
    to='juliet@capulet.com/balcony'
    id='roster2'>
 <query xmlns='jabber:iq:roster'>
    <headers xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/shim'>
      <header name='ETag'>some-long-opaque-string</header>
    </headers>
 </query>
  <error code='304' type='modify'>
    <not-modified xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-stanzas'/>
  </error>
</iq>

If the roster has changed, the provided Entity Tag value is not valid, or the server does not support Entity Tags, it MUST return the roster as if the If-None-Match header was not included:

Example 9. Server Returns Roster
<iq type='result'
    to='juliet@capulet.com/balcony'
    id='roster2'>
 <query xmlns='jabber:iq:roster'>
    <item jid='romeo@montague.net' name='Romeo'>
      <group>Friends</group>
    </item>
    <item jid='nurse@capulet.com' name='Nurse'>
      <group>Servants</group>
    </item>
    <headers xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/shim'>
      <header name='ETag'>some-new-opaque-string</header>
    </headers>
 </query>
</iq>

4.2 Caching and Retrieving Privacy Lists

The payloads exchanged in the Privacy Lists (XEP-0016) [9] protocol can also be quite large. Therefore a server might want to support Entity Tags in the context of privacy list management. The process is as follows.

First, a client requests its privacy lists:

Example 10. Client Requests Privacy List
<iq type='get'
    from='romeo@montague.net/orchard'
    id='getlist1'>
  <query xmlns='jabber:iq:privacy'>
    <list name='special'/>
  </query>
</iq>

The server returns the list and includes an Entity Tag in an ETag SHIM header.

Example 11. Server Returns Privacy List Including ETag Header
<iq type='result'
    to='romeo@example.net/orchard'
    id='getlist1'>
  <query xmlns='jabber:iq:privacy'>
    <list name='special'>
      <item type='jid'
            value='juliet@example.com'
            action='allow'
            order='6'/>
      <item type='jid'
            value='benvolio@example.org'
            action='allow'
            order='7'/>
      <item type='jid'
            value='mercutio@example.org'
            action='allow'
            order='42'/>
      <item action='deny' order='666'/>
    </list>
    <headers xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/shim'>
      <header name='ETag'>some-long-opaque-string</header>
    </headers>
  </query>
</iq>

Later, the client requests the same privacy list again and includes the provided Entity Tag in an If-None-Match SHIM header:

Example 12. Client Requests Privacy List Including If-None-Match Header
<iq type='get'
    from='romeo@montague.net/orchard'
    id='getlist2'>
  <query xmlns='jabber:iq:privacy'>
    <list name='special'/>
    <headers xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/shim'>
      <header name='If-None-Match'>some-long-opaque-string</header>
    </headers>
  </query>
</iq>

If the privacy list did not change since the client last retrieved it and the server supports Entity Tags for the 'jabber:iq:privacy' namespace, the server MUST return a <not-modified/> error:

Example 13. Server Returns Not Modified Error
<iq type='error'
    to='romeo@example.net/orchard'
    id='getlist2'>
 <query xmlns='jabber:iq:privacy'>
    <list name='special'/>
    <headers xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/shim'>
      <header name='ETag'>some-long-opaque-string</header>
    </headers>
 </query>
  <error code='304' type='modify'>
    <not-modified xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-stanzas'/>
  </error>
</iq>

If the privacy list has changed, the provided Entity Tag value is not valid, or the server does not support Entity Tags, it MUST return the privacy list as if the If-None-Match header was not included:

Example 14. Server Returns Privacy List
<iq type='result'
    to='romeo@example.net/orchard'
    id='getlist2'>
  <query xmlns='jabber:iq:privacy'>
    <list name='special'>
      <item type='jid'
            value='juliet@example.com'
            action='allow'
            order='6'/>
      <item type='jid'
            value='benvolio@example.org'
            action='allow'
            order='7'/>
      <item type='jid'
            value='mercutio@example.org'
            action='allow'
            order='42'/>
      <item action='deny' order='666'/>
    </list>
    <headers xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/shim'>
      <header name='ETag'>some-new-opaque-string</header>
    </headers>
  </query>
</iq>

4.3 Discovering Support

Stanza Headers and Internet Metadata (XEP-0131) [2] specifies how support for a particular SHIM header can be explicitly determined using Service Discovery (XEP-0030) [10]. To review, the protocol flow between a client and a server is as follows:

Example 15. Client Queries Server Regarding SHIM Header Support
<iq from='juliet@capulet.com/balcony'
    to='capulet.com'
    id='header1'>
  <query xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/disco#info'
         node='http://jabber.org/protocol/shim'/>
</iq>
Example 16. Server Communicates Supported SHIM Headers
<iq from='capulet.com'
    to='juliet@capulet.com/balcony'
    id='header1'>
  <query xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/disco#info'
         node='http://jabber.org/protocol/shim'>
    ...
    <feature var='http://jabber.org/protocol/shim#ETag'/>
    <feature var='http://jabber.org/protocol/shim#If-None-Match'/>
    ...
  </query>
</iq>

The client now knows that the server supports the ETag and If-None-Match SHIM headers and can proceed accordingly.

Note: If an XMPP entity supports Entity Tags as specified herein, it MUST at a minimum support both the ETag and If-None-Match SHIM headers.

Note: Even if an entity supports the ETag and If-None-Match SHIM headers, it is not required to support Entity Tag functionality for all namespaces. For example, a server could support Entity Tags only for rosters and privacy lists but not for the 'jabber:iq:last' or 'jabber:iq:version' namespaces. Similarly, a Multi-User Chat (XEP-0045) [11] service could support Entity Tags only for room lists (retrieved via a "disco#items" request) but not for other requests. As noted, if an entity does not support Entity Tags for a given namespace or request, it SHOULD proceed as if the ETag or If-None-Match SHIM header had not been included in the request.

Optionally, an entity MAY communicate the namespaces for which it supports Entity Tag functionality by listing those namespaces in its response to a "disco#info" request sent to a node of "http://jabber.org/protocol/shim#ETag":

Example 17. Client Queries Server Regarding Supported Entity Tag Namespaces
<iq from='juliet@capulet.com/balcony'
    to='capulet.com'
    id='header1'>
  <query xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/disco#info'
         node='http://jabber.org/protocol/shim#ETag'/>
</iq>
Example 18. Server Communicates Supported Entity Tag Namespaces
<iq from='capulet.com'
    to='juliet@capulet.com/balcony'
    id='header1'>
  <query xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/disco#info'
         node='http://jabber.org/protocol/shim#ETag'>
    ...
    <feature var='jabber:iq:roster'/>
    <feature var='jabber:iq:privacy'/>
    ...
  </query>
</iq>

Alternatively, as shown above and as used in HTTP, the requesting entity MAY implicitly discover that Entity Tag functionality is supported with regard to a given response entity type if the responding entity includes an ETag SHIM header in its response.

5. Security Considerations

If a malicious entity gains access to a user's credentials or is able to masquerade as another entity on the network (e.g., as a man in the middle), it could force retrieval of information before it has changed. However, such access would compromise communications in a more serious fashion and corruption of the Entity Tags functionality is insignificant in comparison.

6. IANA Considerations

This proposal requires no interaction with the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) [12].

7. XMPP Registrar Considerations

This proposal requires no interaction with the XMPP Registrar [13].

8. XML Schema

This document describes best practices for use of XEP-0131 and therefore does not require a dedicated schema.

9. Open Issues

Is the ETag tied to a bare JID or full JID?

Appendices

Appendix A: Document Information

Series
XEP
Number
0150
Publisher
XMPP Standards Foundation
Status
Deferred
Type
Informational
Version
0.2
Last Updated
2005-08-09
Approving Body
XMPP Council
Dependencies
XMPP Core, RFC 2616, XEP-0131
Supersedes
None
Superseded By
None
Short Name
N/A
Source Control
HTML

This document in other formats: XML  PDF

Appendix B: Author Information

Joe Hildebrand
Email
jhildebr@cisco.com
JabberID
hildjj@jabber.org
Peter Saint-Andre
Email
stpeter@stpeter.im
JabberID
stpeter@jabber.org
URI
https://stpeter.im/

Copyright

This XMPP Extension Protocol is copyright © 1999 – 2024 by the XMPP Standards Foundation (XSF).

Permissions

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this specification (the "Specification"), to make use of the Specification without restriction, including without limitation the rights to implement the Specification in a software program, deploy the Specification in a network service, and copy, modify, merge, publish, translate, distribute, sublicense, or sell copies of the Specification, and to permit persons to whom the Specification is furnished to do so, subject to the condition that the foregoing copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Specification. Unless separate permission is granted, modified works that are redistributed shall not contain misleading information regarding the authors, title, number, or publisher of the Specification, and shall not claim endorsement of the modified works by the authors, any organization or project to which the authors belong, or the XMPP Standards Foundation.

Disclaimer of Warranty

## NOTE WELL: This Specification is provided on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, express or implied, including, without limitation, any warranties or conditions of TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. ##

Limitation of Liability

In no event and under no legal theory, whether in tort (including negligence), contract, or otherwise, unless required by applicable law (such as deliberate and grossly negligent acts) or agreed to in writing, shall the XMPP Standards Foundation or any author of this Specification be liable for damages, including any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages of any character arising from, out of, or in connection with the Specification or the implementation, deployment, or other use of the Specification (including but not limited to damages for loss of goodwill, work stoppage, computer failure or malfunction, or any and all other commercial damages or losses), even if the XMPP Standards Foundation or such author has been advised of the possibility of such damages.

IPR Conformance

This XMPP Extension Protocol has been contributed in full conformance with the XSF's Intellectual Property Rights Policy (a copy of which can be found at <https://xmpp.org/about/xsf/ipr-policy> or obtained by writing to XMPP Standards Foundation, P.O. Box 787, Parker, CO 80134 USA).

Visual Presentation

The HTML representation (you are looking at) is maintained by the XSF. It is based on the YAML CSS Framework, which is licensed under the terms of the CC-BY-SA 2.0 license.

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 <https://xmpp.org/community/> 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

1. RFC 2616: Hypertext Transport Protocol -- HTTP/1.1 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616>.

2. XEP-0131: Stanza Headers and Internet Metadata <https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0131.html>.

3. RFC 3920: Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Core <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3920>.

4. XEP-0086: Error Condition Mappings <https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0086.html>.

5. RFC 6120: Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Core <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6120>.

6. XEP-0072: SOAP over XMPP <https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0072.html>.

7. XEP-0004: Data Forms <https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0004.html>.

8. RFC 6121: Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging and Presence <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6121>.

9. XEP-0016: Privacy Lists <https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0016.html>.

10. XEP-0030: Service Discovery <https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0030.html>.

11. XEP-0045: Multi-User Chat <https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html>.

12. 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/>.

13. 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 <https://xmpp.org/registrar/>.

Appendix H: Revision History

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

  1. Version 0.2 (2005-08-09)

    Added security considerations.

    psa
  2. Version 0.1 (2005-06-02)

    Initial version.

    psa
  3. Version 0.0.1 (2005-05-26)

    First draft.

    psa/jjh

Appendix I: Bib(La)TeX Entry

@report{hildebrand2005n/a,
  title = {Use of Entity Tags in XMPP Extensions},
  author = {Hildebrand, Joe and Saint-Andre, Peter},
  type = {XEP},
  number = {0150},
  version = {0.2},
  institution = {XMPP Standards Foundation},
  url = {https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0150.html},
  date = {2005-05-26/2005-08-09},
}

END