Re: [xmpp] Proposed XMPP Charter Update

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I've no objection to this charter but do have a question:

Q: loads of us use OTR, but there's no mention of that
in the charter - why don't we just spec that in an RFC?

Or two RFCs if need be, one for what's done now, one with
any changes the WG think are needed and will be deployed.

A quick web search leads me to believe that this [1]
might be how OTR works, but I could be wrong. Even having
an informational RFC as a stable reference would seem
to be an improvement.

Sorry if there's an obvious answer and I've not got the
history.

Ta,
S.

[1] http://www.cypherpunks.ca/otr/Protocol-v3-4.0.0.html

On 02/21/2013 07:59 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
> 
> We need to do a minor charter update to add the XMPP/WebSockets work. 
> 
> Here's the proposed new text. This version is the same as before, except it removes the text for XMPP interworking with SIP/SIMPLE, an adds text for WebSockets. The new text is the second to last paragraph.
> 
> Please send any feedback to the XMPP mailing list as soon as possible. (If you agree with the text as is, please say that, too :-) )
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Ben.
> 
> -----------------
> 
> The Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) is an
> technology for the near-real-time exchange of messages and presence
> notifications, where data is exchanged over Extensible Markup Language
> (XML) streams. The original XMPP working group published RFCs 3920-3923.
> 
> Implementation and deployment experience since that time has resulted
> in errata, clarifications, and suggestions for improvement to the core
> XMPP specifications (RFCs 3920 and 3921). Some technologies on which
> XMPP depends (e.g., Transport Layer Security and the Simple
> Authentication and Security Layer) have undergone modifications of their
> own, which XMPP needs to track. Finally, the group needs to define a
> sustainable solution to internationalization of XMPP addresses, since
> the approach taken in RFC 3920 (based on stringprep profiles) is limited
> to Unicode 3.2 characters. Both draft-saintandre-rfc3920bis-* and
> draft-saintandre-rfc3921bis-* reflect community input so
> far regarding these modifications, but the group needs to complete this
> work, especially with regard to internationalization. Because of the
> scope of changes involved, it is envisioned that these specifications
> will be cycled at Proposed Standard.
> 
> Although RFC 3923 defines an end-to-end signing and encryption
> technology for use by XMPP systems, to date it has not been implemented.
> A goal of the group is to develop an implementable method for end-to-end
> encryption, preferably based on well known and widely deployed security
> technologies.
> 
> XMPP uses TLS for encryption and the Simple Authentication and Security
> Layer (SASL) for authentication. In the case of a server-to-server
> stream, XMPP is deployed using TLS and the SASL EXTERNAL mechanism,
> where each peer presents an X.509 certificate. This model introduces
> scaling challenges in multi-domain deployments because RFC 3920 requires
> that a stream cannot be reused for more than one domain, thus
> necessitating multiple TCP connections. The group will work to overcome
> these challenges by defining an optional mechanism for using a single
> connection with multiple identities. It is anticipated that most of the
> work will consist of defining and providing requirements to the TLS and
> SASL working groups.
> 
> In addition to the TCP binding defined in RFC 6120, the XMPP community
> has long employed an HTTP binding (XEP-0124 and XEP-0206 published by 
> the XMPP Standards Foundation).  Given that this binding uses HTTP long 
> polling, which has many known issues (RFC 6202), it is reasonable to 
> transition to use of the WebSocket protocol (RFC 6455) instead.  Work has
> begun on defining a WebSocket subprotocol for XMPP 
> (draft-moffitt-xmpp-over-websocket).  The group will complete the 
> definition of such a subprotocol, and coordinate reviews with the HYBI WG 
> where appropriate.
> 
> In completing its work, the group will strive to retain backwards
> compatibility with RFCs 3920 and 3921. However, changes that are not
> backwards compatible might be accepted if the group determines that the
> changes are required to meet the group's technical objectives and the
> group clearly documents the reasons for making them.
> _______________________________________________
> xmpp mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp
> 
>