Abstract: | This document specifies best practices to be followed by Jabber/XMPP clients about when to lock into, and unlock away from, resources. |
Author: | Matthew Miller |
Copyright: | © 1999 – 2018 XMPP Standards Foundation. SEE LEGAL NOTICES. |
Status: | Deferred |
Type: | Informational |
Version: | 0.2 |
Last Updated: | 2011-08-18 |
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.
1. Introduction
2. General Rules
2.1. Initial Conversation State
2.2. Locking a Conversation
2.3. Unlocking a Conversation
2.4. Interactions with Chat States
3. User Agent Implementation Notes
3.1. User Experience Considerations
3.2. Idle Conversations
3.3. Overall Inactivity
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
The goal of this specification is to provide implementation guidance for XMPP clients to improve the user experience when maintaining a chat conversation between the user and a conversee. Section 5.1 of XMPP IM [1] defines the concept of a "one-to-one chat session" and recommends that clients support the behavior described there, including:
However, following only these guidelines can still lead to "disjointed" chat conversations in clients, epsecially if multiple resources are in play.
This specification reinforces the recommendations from XMPP-IM and provides additional implementation guidance to developers of XMPP clients.
A client MUST start conversations in the unlocked state. In this state, a client MUST send <message/>s to a conversee's bare JID.
Once a client receives a chat <message/> from the conversee, whether or not this client initiated the conversation, it MUST lock the conversation. The client MUST remember the conversee's full JID and send further correspondence to this full JID until one of the unlocking conditions are met.
A client MUST unlock a chat session from a resource when one of the following conditions is met:
If a client supports Chat State Notifications (XEP-0085) [2], then the following additional considerations apply:
This section is non-normative, but provides additional guidelines for clients that interact directly with users.
To further improve the user experience, clients are strongly encouraged to implement Chat State Notifications and adhere to the recommendations from Best Practices for Message Threads (XEP-0201) [3].
A client MAY take into account the lack of activity of a conversation. Exactly how much inactivity constitutes an idle conversation is left to implementations to determine.
A client MAY take into account the overall lack of activity of a user, in which case it is RECOMMENDED the client send a <presence/> update to trigger any conversations to unlock. The exact conditions and <presence/> information conveyed is left to implementations to determine.
This document introduces no known security vulnerabilities.
This document requires no interaction with the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) [4].
This document requires no interaction with the XMPP Registrar [5].
Series: XEP
Number: 0296
Publisher: XMPP Standards Foundation
Status:
Deferred
Type:
Informational
Version: 0.2
Last Updated: 2011-08-18
Approving Body: XMPP Council
Dependencies: XMPP Core, XMPP IM, XEP-0085, XEP-0201
Supersedes: None
Superseded By: None
Short Name: NOT_YET_ASSIGNED
Source Control:
HTML
This document in other formats:
XML
PDF
Email:
linuxwolf@outer-planes.net
JabberID:
linuxwolf@outer-planes.net
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".
1. RFC 6121: Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging and Presence <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6121>.
2. XEP-0085: Chat State Notifications <https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0085.html>.
3. XEP-0201: Best Practices for Message Threads <https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0201.html>.
4. 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/>.
5. 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/>.
Note: Older versions of this specification might be available at http://xmpp.org/extensions/attic/
Expanded intro with a short problem description; moved chat states considerations to their own section; tightened requirement regarding a message from different resource from MAY to SHOULD; loosened requirement regarding a message with 'gone' from MUST to SHOULD; added missing but required sections
(mam)Initial published version.
(psa)Initial draft
(mm)END