Last Modified: 2003-10-20
The working group will use XMPP (as described in draft-miller-xmpp-*) as the basis of its work. The final specifications will be consistent as much as practical with both the requirements given in RFC2779 and the interoperability details in the final version of the CPIM specification (draft-ietf-impp-cpim). Note: If a requirement of RFC2779 or the final CPIM specification cannot be met, the working group will document why this requirement cannot be met.
A major goal of the working group will be to extend the current XMPP protocols to provide finished support for RFC 2779-compliant security mechanisms, including authentication, privacy, access control and end-to-end as well as hop-by-hop message security. Mandatory-to-implement security mechanisms will be specified as needed in order to guarantee secure protocol interoperability.
The working group shall also add support for internationalization and localization to XMPP.
Instant messaging differs from email primarily by requiring relatively short delivery latency guarantees and, typically, less robust transport service. In addition, instant messaging includes the notion of presence information so authorized users can determine if their correspondents are available.
BCP 41 will be the basis for working group consideration of the transport implications of the XMPP design with respect to network congestion.
Although not encouraged, non-backwards-compatible changes to the basis specifications will be acceptable if the working group determines that the changes are required to meet the group's technical objectives and the group clearly documents the reasons for making them.
There are facilities, such as chat rooms, shared white-boards and similar services that are not currently discussed in RFC2778 and RFC2779. When designing security mechanisms, the working group will keep in mind that XMPP may be extended or adapted to facilitate these additional services, so that design decisions can be made that will not preclude providing these services in the future.
|Done||Prepare revised specifications reflecting issues and solutions identified by the working group|
|Done||Meet at the 55th IETF to discuss current drafts|
|Done||Prepare final core protocol draft ready for working group last call|
|Done||Prepare final instant messaging draft ready for working group last call|
|Feb 03||Prepare final CPIM compliance draft ready for working group last call|
|Mar 03||Submit revised specifications to the IESG for consideration as standards-track publications|
granular.MINUTES XMPP WORKING GROUP IETF 58 2003-11-14 09:00 - 11:30 Chairs: Lisa Dusseault, Pete Resnick Scribe: Marshall T. Rose 1. Call to order and administrivia The meeting was called to order at 09:03 by the chairs. No changes to the agenda were suggested. The meeting is being xmpp'cast at firstname.lastname@example.org. 2 . Status of Core/IM Documents - http://www.jabber.org/ietf/58/psa Peter St.Andre described changes made to the documents since IESG last call. The chairs asked if all issues had been addressed. Kurt Zeilenga thought some of his minor editorial issues may have been missed and will check. Jeff Altman indicated that the SAAG had a discussion regarding sasl/tls, in which tls should be ignored. However, some others in the room weren't sure that the discussion was definitive. He will research the issue further and provide text, if needed. Rohan Mahy asked whether SASL was mandatory if TLS was used (if TLS client-side authentication occurs, then SASL EXTERNAL, provides no additional functionality, but does introduce a round-trip). The concensus was that the existing document reflects current practice from a number of appliation protocols, and would not be changed. No other issues were arising. The chairs indicated that in both cases, these minor changes could be be added during the 48-hour period, if warranted. Accordingly, the chairs declared the documents "done". 3. Status of E2E/CPIM documents - http://www.jabber.org/ietf/58/psa Peter St. Andre described changes made to the documents since IETF57. The documents are essentially unaltered for the last three months. Ted Hardie indicated that the IMPP DNS SRV document establishes a registry, and that one of the XMPP documents should include a section registering XMPP's IM application. No new issues were raised. Accordingly the chairs have an action to issue a WG last call on the remaining two documents; further, the editor has an action to add a registration section as discussed above. 4. Call for Implementation reports Ted Hardie asked whether there were implementation reports of the E2E and CPIM documents, although Perry Metzger questioned whether that was within the scope of the existing charter. Ted Hardie indicated that he thought that common handles would be considered within scope. Lisa Dusseault reported that there had been some experience with CPIM, though not with E2E. Cullen Jennings reported that some testing has been done at a SIP interoperability event with an open source s/mime client. Different XMPP (nee Jabber) implementors indicated that they were able to successfull integrate the Core and IM documents with their existing implementations. Accordingly, Joe Hildebrand took an action to review the state of common handles with respect to XMPP. 5. Related Work and Next Steps Lisa Dusseault made a brief presentation about several possible areas for extensions, e.g., extended presence, application notifications, and conferencing. <http://www.sharemation.com/~milele/p ublic/notifications/notification-architecture.ppt> It is an open issue was to whether these should be pursued in a future XMPP extensions WG, or other WGs. For example, there was considerable discussion regarding possible conferencing overlap with the XCON WG. In particular, XMPP already has a robust, mature multi-user chat (MUC) protocol. It was noted that in many cases, an XMPP-centric perspective is appropriate, although this was not universally agreed to. Further, it was noted that moving XMPP-centric efforts into the IETF have value in providing experience with respect to scaling and security, and that this is particularly true for conferencing. Accordingly, Lisa Dusseault will introduce an I-D on XMPP-based notifications to the LEMONADE WG; further, the Peter St.Andre will prepare an introduction to XMPP's MUC protocol for submission to the XCON WG. Finally, the chairs took an action to start, on the WG mailing list, a discussion of what kinds of extensions would be appropriate for IETF consideration. 6. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 10:25