Protocol Action: 'Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging and Presence' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-xmpp-3921bis-20.txt)

The IESG <> Tue, 25 January 2011 17:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A31FD3A6841; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:45:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yt-sYMbFEsxp; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:45:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 994193A685B; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:45:42 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG <>
To: IETF-Announce <>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging and Presence' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-xmpp-3921bis-20.txt)
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.10
Message-ID: <20110125174542.16140.23296.idtracker@localhost>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:45:42 -0800
Cc: Internet Architecture Board <>, xmpp chair <>, xmpp mailing list <>, RFC Editor <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IETF announcement list. No discussions." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 17:45:44 -0000

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging
   and Presence'
  (draft-ietf-xmpp-3921bis-20.txt) as a Proposed Standard

This document is the product of the Extensible Messaging and Presence
Protocol Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Gonzalo Camarillo and Robert Sparks.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:

Technical Summary

   Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
   and/or introduction of the document.  If not, this may be 
   an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
   or introduction.

This document defines extensions to core features of the Extensible
Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) that provide basic instant messaging
(IM) and presence functionality in conformance with the requirements in RFC
2779.  This document obsoletes RFC 3921.

Working Group Summary

   Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
   For example, was there controversy about particular points 
   or were there decisions where the consensus was
   particularly rough? 

There is strong consensus in the working group to publish this document.
There have been many implementations of RFC 3921, and that experience has
been adequately captured in this document.  No points of controversy remain
in the working group.

Document Quality

   Are there existing implementations of the protocol?  Have a 
   significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
   implement the specification?  Are there any reviewers that
   merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
   e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
   conclusion that the document had no substantive issues?  If
   there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
   what was its course (briefly)?  In the case of a Media Type
   Review, on what date was the request posted?

There are at least 25 server implementations, 50 library implementations,
and 100 client implementations of the XMPP RFCs; a partial list is located
at <> (that list does not include "software as
a service" implementations hosted by service providers such as Google Talk).
Several downloadable software
implementations in each category have been closely tracking the changes
between RFC 3921 and draft-ietf-xmpp-3921bis, and many others are currently
being upgraded or are waiting until the replacement RFC is
published before including the modifications in released software.
Interoperability is continually being verified among implementation teams,
over the XMPP network, and at more formal interoperability
testing events sponsored by the XMPP Standards Foundation. It is expected
that official implementation reports will be submitted within a year after
publication of the revised XMPP RFCs.


   Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the 
   Responsible Area Director?  If the document requires IANA
   experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
   in this document are <TO BE ADDED BY THE AD>.'

The document shepherd for this document is Joe Hildebrand.
The responsible Area Director is Gonzalo Camarillo.
IANA Expertise is not required.