We recently submitted three new Internet-Drafts to the IETF. You may find them here: http://www.jabber.org/ietf/ Also, a Jabber-related BOF will be held at the 54th IETF in Yokohama. Details are here: http://www.ietf.org/ietf/02jul/jabber.txt Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre Jabber Software Foundation http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.html
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> We recently submitted three new Internet-Drafts to the IETF. You may
> find
> them here:
>
> http://www.jabber.org/ietf/
Peter,
This page states that the JSF made these submissions to the IETF. I may
be wrong but I didn't remember any prior discussion, proof-reading, etc.
of these docs before you announced their submisssion. They seem to have
been solely authored by you, J. Miller and T. Bamonti, all three at
jabber inc.
Am I mistaken ? If not, can you tell me why you didn't follow the same
public review process as you did with the first draft ?
Regards,
Fabrice
--
Fabrice Desré - FT.BD/FTR&D/DTL/TAL
Tél: (33) 2 96 05 31 43
Fax: (33) 2 96 05 39 45
Salut Fabrice! Thanks for your continuing interest in our IETF efforts. As you can see from reviewing these documents, they were prepared in large measure simply by splitting the old document into three documents, so that public input seemed less important (there is very little new content in them). In addition, we created these three new documents under extreme time pressure in order to send them to the IETF in time for the Yokohama deadline, which would have made it difficult to incorporate a great deal of feedback. However, we now hope and plan to refine these documents within the well-defined processes of the IETF. Specifically, this means they will go through several revisions in the fully public venue of this list and, perhaps, of an official IETF working group (if it is perceived that a working group would be beneficial upon the consideration of the Area Directors after the Birds of a Feather session to be held at the 54th IETF in Yokohama; see http://www.ietf.org/ietf/02jul/jabber.txt for details). As always, let me know if you have any questions or feedback on our IETF documents. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre Jabber Software Foundation http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.html On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, Fabrice Desré wrote: > Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > > We recently submitted three new Internet-Drafts to the IETF. You may > > find > > them here: > > > > http://www.jabber.org/ietf/ > > Peter, > > This page states that the JSF made these submissions to the IETF. I may > be wrong but I didn't remember any prior discussion, proof-reading, etc. > of these docs before you announced their submisssion. They seem to have > been solely authored by you, J. Miller and T. Bamonti, all three at > jabber inc. > Am I mistaken ? If not, can you tell me why you didn't follow the same > public review process as you did with the first draft ? > > Regards, > > Fabrice > > > -- > Fabrice Desré - FT.BD/FTR&D/DTL/TAL > Tél: (33) 2 96 05 31 43 > Fax: (33) 2 96 05 39 45 >
I have found several errors in the protocol examples contained in draft-miller-xmpp-im-00. I've fixed these errors in the CVS version of draft-miller-xmpp-im-01, but I figured I would make public notice of them here. Specifically: 1. The message error example in section 4.8 is inconsistent with the other examples, since romeo <at> montague.net does exist in the other examples and would not generate a 404 message. I've changed the example so that it is now consistent with the rest of the examples. 2. The examples in sections 7.2 and 7.3 were missing </query> tags. I have added these to the XML snippets for these examples. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre Jabber Software Foundation http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.html
> I have found several errors in the protocol examples contained in > draft-miller-xmpp-im-00. I've fixed these errors in the CVS version of > draft-miller-xmpp-im-01, but I figured I would make public notice of them > here. Specifically: > ... thanks! i appreciate getting the updates. keep going through it with a fine-comb. it's hard to proof stuff like this without a lot of repetitions... /mtr
hi. attached are the minutes from the BOF held last monday evening at the yokohama ietf. share and enjoy, /mtr
Minutes of the Jabber BOF (jabber)
Time: Monday, 2002-07-15, 1930-2200, room 501
Chair: Pete Resnick
Minutes: Marshall Rose
1. Agenda Bashing:
The chair introduced the agenda, and asked for some to take
minutes. A volunteer was indentured.
It was agreed to revise the agenda to allow for questions both during
and in between the presentations. In particular, much discussion was
expected after the first two technical presentations.
2. Introduction:
The chair introduced the bof by noting that Jabber is a lot of different
things, but that the bof was limited to the XMPP protocol that Jabber
uses. In particular, the question to answer is whether its a good idea
to bring xmpp into to the IETF.
An initial question was whether the owners of XMPP understood what that
entails. (Much discussion along this line was held later on, cf.,
Section 6, below).
3. XMPP Overview, by Joe Hildebrand, Chief Architect, Jabber, Inc.
The speaker's basic points:
- XMPP is an XML-based protocol that delivers asynchronous XML content,
of which IM is a one kind of traffic
- Three are 3 I-Ds that document the existing XMPP
- XMPP's model is similar in concept to the SMTP model, the major
addition being the notion of resources (multiple mailboxes for the
same recipient) and services (a standardized way of extending a
server)
- Each direction of an XMPP connection is a single XML document
containing zero or more "packets"
- There are three types of packets: message, presence, and info/query
The speaker gave some examples of XMPP packets and usage and then
indicated areas in which the IETF could add value:
- Separation of presence from IM
- Security standardization
- Transport independence (e.g., SMS)
4. Questions
Do XMPP entities trust the "From" element? Not really. Servers
require that clients authenticate themselves, and server/server
authentication occurs with a dialback mechanism, but neither are
inherently secure.
Does XMPP support anonymous messages? Although there are
anonymizers, in general, the answer is no.
Are subscriptions bi-directional? No, there are for kinds: to, from,
both, or none.
Why did you crate a new URL scheme ("jabber:") for a few new
datatypes. This was a historical decision.
How do you handle downgrade attacks? Clients may be configurable as
to the minimum level of acceptable security. (It was subsequently
noted that, in the absence of TLS, that an attacker could hijack a
TCP connection regardless of the method of authentication.)
5. XMPP and the IETF, by Jeremie Miller, Founder, Jabber Software Foundation
The speaker recounted the early history of Jabber, starting back in
1998, along with his initial interactions with the IMPP working
group.
The speaker then explained Jabber's growth, both in terms of users
and applications. As a result, there are presently over 100K
deployments with over 1M users. This growth is leading to new
pressures on the Jabber Software Foundation (JSF) which current
manages XMPP development. Rather than start diverging activities,
the JSF would prefer that XMPP move to the IETF to get:
- a "better" standards-process
- help with security
- help with internationalization
In terms of comparing XMPP with IMPP, the speaker noted two
differences:
1. XMPP is XML-based whilst IMPP is MIME-based, and that you could
encapsulate XML in MIME and vice-versa. However, when building a
CPIM gateway, if end-to-end encryption were used, then translation
could not occur.
2. XMPP achieves presence using broadcast, not transient
subscriptions. However, a CPIM gateway could easily translate
between the two.
6. More Questions:
There were several questions concerning change control. The second
speaker explained the current process used by the JSF. Briefly,
Jabber Enhancement Proposals (JEPs) are submitted, discussed in a
group, and a vote is taken by the JSF's council.
If the IETF starts work on XMPP, with the JEP process be discarded?
For the parts that deal with XMPP, yes. (Jabber is more than XMPP.)
Are you comfortable with the notion of giving up control of the
technology in your flagship project? Yes, this has sign-off at the
highest levels of management in Jabber, Inc.
Will you support the resulting specification? Yes, this has
sign-off at the highest levels of management in Jabber, Inc.
It was noted that the IETF process isn't as fast as the way XMPP has
developed.
There were several questions on backwards-compatibility. The first
speaker explained that XMPP was very "upgrade friendly" and that two
large protocol upgrades had already been made to XMPP since 1998.
What is special in XMPP that we need to standardize something else
that does presence? Jabber is a simple, easy to configure and use
system that asynchronously transports XML content.
What would prevent other companies with IM technology and coming to
the IETF and making the same offer? Nothing, and that's a good thing.
There was some discussion as to whether CPIM was still needed if
SIMPLE were to be the only IM technology used by the IETF.
7. User experiences (part one), by Dale Malik, Bellsouth
The speaker briefly discussed a commercial offering provisioned for
1.5M users. Under test, the system has supported 200K simultaneous
users with 100K simultaneous sessions.
The speaker indicate the kinds of things he'd like to see in moving
foward with XMPP:
- more security
- more carrier class
- easier application integration
8. User experiences (part two), by Alexandre Noell, France Telecom
The speaker briefly described a commercial offering for an ISP
having 7M users. After developing an internal protocol, the ISP
adopted XMPP instead because:
- it was XML-based, so it was easy to understand, implement, and
integrate
- it supported interoperability with other IM systems, including
server/server queries
- it is connection-oriented, which is good for server-push
- it is extensible, making it easy to extend exsting features
and add new protocol functions.
The ISP subsequently added about 10 new services to XMPP, e.g.,
blacklisting.
In terms of technology choices, the ISP deployed the service using
both Sun/Oracle and PCs. The front-ends are each able to handle 10K
simultaneous sessions and upto 400 messages/second, and the servers
are each able to handle 100K simultaneous sessions and 2000
messages/second (i.e., a user sending a message every 50
seconds). The offering launched in April, 2002 and is currently
running with 300K users.
The speaker indicate the kinds of things he'd like to see in moving
foward with XMPP:
- presence packets should be per domain instead of per contact
- presence should be better seperated from subscription
9. Still More Questions:
There were several questions/comments (well, mostly comments)
regarding whether (or not) introducing XMPP was destructive of the
IETF process, e.g.,
- should the IETF be standardizing technologies or picking
winners?
- doesn't SIMPLE have mind share? the IETF shouldn't do
overlapping protocols (oh, wait there's already CPIM)
- we're setting the bar too high by requiring that a new effort
not compete with an existing effort, the only questions should
be: is it tecnically credible, are people willing to work on
it, are people willing to use it?
- we should be deciding things based on the number of folks who
want to do things, not the number opposed.
- what exactly is the scope of xmpp? asynchronously transport of
XML content
- do we have the resources to split up our efforts?
It was noted that SIMPLE wasn't the only thing in the IETF, that
APEX was being published as RFCs.
What are the advantages of XMPP over SIMPLE? traverses firewalls,
has congestion control, a lot easier to implement and integrate with.
Will XMPP implementors (other than Jabber, Inc.) synchronize their
work with the IETF product? If there's functionality there, sure.
It was noted that a generic XML delivery system, or even an IM
transfer protocol, such as XMPP would be an interesting work item
for the IETF.
And, finally: is any of the XMPP technology encumbered by IPR
issues? No, portions of the Jabber, Inc., implementation have IPR
protection, but there are at least two commercial XMPP
implementations from other companies, and the Jabber, Inc. lawyers
aren't suing them.
10. Wrap-up
The chair asked for humming for the following three activites: How many
folks would are willing to work on XMPP for:
- for async messaging
- for im
- for presence
after receive various hums, the meeting was adjoured.
#######
For convenience and permanence, I've posted these as a URL: http://www.jabber.org/ietf/bof-minutes.txt Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre Jabber Software Foundation http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.html On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Marshall Rose wrote: > hi. attached are the minutes from the BOF held last monday evening at the yokohama ietf. > > share and enjoy, > > /mtr >
RSS Feed2 | |
|---|---|
18 | |
9 | |
4 | |
2 | |
85 | |
44 | |
5 | |
1 | |
3 | |
1 | |
3 | |
20 | |
3 | |
2 | |
4 | |
6 | |
1 | |
7 | |
42 | |
4 | |
4 | |
17 | |
5 | |
5 | |
3 | |
6 | |
12 | |
9 | |
4 | |
11 | |
2 | |
5 | |
2 | |
7 | |
17 | |
19 | |
14 | |
14 | |
24 | |
17 | |
16 | |
14 | |
10 | |
30 | |
42 | |
25 | |
18 | |
30 | |
113 | |
132 | |
56 | |
142 | |
61 | |
96 | |
31 | |
181 | |
186 | |
141 | |
99 | |
141 | |
90 | |
137 | |
91 | |
129 | |
61 | |
77 | |
7 | |
1 |
