[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-saintandre-xmpp-address) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 RFC 6122

Network Working Group                                     P. Saint-Andre
Internet-Draft                                       Cisco Systems, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track                            July 7, 2010
Expires: January 8, 2011


   Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Address Format
                       draft-ietf-xmpp-address-01

Abstract

   This document defines the format for addresses used in the Extensible
   Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP), including support for non-
   ASCII characters.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 8, 2011.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.





Saint-Andre              Expires January 8, 2011                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft             XMPP Address Format                 July 2010


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     2.1.  Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     2.2.  Domainpart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.3.  Localpart  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.4.  Resourcepart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   3.  Internationalization Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   4.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.1.  Reuse of Stringprep  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.2.  Reuse of Unicode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.3.  Confusable Characters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     4.4.  Address Spoofing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       4.4.1.  Address Forging  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       4.4.2.  Address Mimicking  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     5.1.  Nodeprep Profile of Stringprep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     5.2.  Resourceprep Profile of Stringprep . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   6.  Conformance Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   7.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     7.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     7.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   Appendix A.  Nodeprep  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     A.1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     A.2.  Character Repertoire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     A.3.  Mapping  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     A.4.  Normalization  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     A.5.  Prohibited Output  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     A.6.  Bidirectional Characters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     A.7.  Notes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
   Appendix B.  Resourceprep  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     B.1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     B.2.  Character Repertoire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     B.3.  Mapping  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     B.4.  Normalization  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     B.5.  Prohibited Output  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     B.6.  Bidirectional Characters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   Appendix C.  Differences From RFC 3920 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   Appendix D.  Copying Conditions  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20










Saint-Andre              Expires January 8, 2011                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft             XMPP Address Format                 July 2010


1.  Introduction

   The Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol [XMPP] is an
   application profile of the Extensible Markup Language [XML] for
   streaming XML data in close to real time between any two or more
   network-aware entities.  The address format for such entities was
   originally developed in the Jabber open-source community in 1999
   (thus for historical reasons the native address of an XMPP entity is
   called a Jabber Identifier or JID).  In essence, a JID contains up to
   three parts, in the arrangement <localpart@domainpart/resourcepart>
   (where the localpart and resourcepart are both discretionary and each
   part can contain nearly any Unicode code point [UNICODE], encoded
   according to [UTF-8]).  The JID format was first described by
   [XEP-0029] in 2002, then defined canonically by [RFC3920] in 2004.
   As defined in RFC 3920, the XMPP address format re-uses the
   "stringprep" technology for preparation of non-ASCII characters
   [STRINGPREP], including the Nameprep profile for internationalized
   domain names as specified in [NAMEPREP] and [IDNA2003] along with two
   XMPP-specific profiles for the localpart and resourcepart.  Since the
   publication of RFC 3920, IDNA2003 has been superseded by IDNA2008
   (see [IDNA-PROTO] and related documents).  As a result, other
   protocols that use stringprep (including XMPP) have begun to migrate
   from stringprep toward more "modern" approaches.  Because work on
   improved handling of internationalized addresses is currently in
   progress, specifying the XMPP address format in the specification
   that obsoletes RFC 3920 would unacceptably delay the revision
   process.  Therefore, this specification provides updated
   documentation of the XMPP address format (essentially copied from RFC
   3920), with the intent that it can be superseded once work on a new
   approach to internationalization is complete.


2.  Addresses

2.1.  Overview

   An ENTITY is anything that is network-addressable and that can
   communicate using XMPP.  For historical reasons, the native address
   of an XMPP entity is called a JABBER IDENTIFIER or JID.  A valid JID
   contains a set of ordered elements formed of an XMPP localpart,
   domainpart, and resourcepart.

   The syntax for a JID is defined as follows using the Augmented
   Backus-Naur Form as specified in [ABNF].







Saint-Andre              Expires January 8, 2011                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft             XMPP Address Format                 July 2010


      jid           = [ localpart "@" ] domainpart [ "/" resourcepart ]
      localpart     = 1*(nodepoint)
                      ; a "nodepoint" is a UTF-8 encoded Unicode code
                      ; point that satisfies the Nodeprep profile of
                      ; stringprep
      domainpart    = IP-literal / IPv4address / ifqdn
                      ; the "IPv4address" and "IP-literal" rules are
                      ; defined in RFC 3986, and the first-match-wins
                      ; (a.k.a. "greedy") algorithm described in RFC
                      ; 3986 applies to the matching process
      ifqdn         = 1*(namepoint)
                      ; a "namepoint" is a UTF-8 encoded Unicode
                      ; code point that satisfies the Nameprep
                      ; profile of stringprep
      resourcepart  = 1*(resourcepoint)
                      ; a "resourcepoint" is a UTF-8 encoded Unicode
                      ; code point that satisfies the Resourceprep
                      ; profile of stringprep

   All JIDs are based on the foregoing structure.  One common use of
   this structure is to identify a messaging and presence account, the
   server that hosts the account, and a connected resource (e.g., a
   specific device) in the form of <localpart@domain/resource>.
   However, localparts other than clients are possible; for example, a
   specific chat room offered by a multi-user chat service (see
   [XEP-0045]) is addressed as <room@service> (where "room" is the name
   of the chat room and "service" is the hostname of the multi-user chat
   service) and a specific occupant of such a room could be addressed as
   <room@service/nick> (where "nick" is the occupant's room nickname).
   Many other JID types are possible (e.g., <domain/resource> could be a
   server-side script or service).

   Each allowable portion of a JID (localpart, domainpart, and
   resourcepart) MUST NOT be zero bytes in length and MUST NOT be more
   than 1023 bytes in length, resulting in a maximum total size
   (including the '@' and '/' separators) of 3071 bytes.

   Although the format of a JID is roughly consistent with [URI], an
   entity's address on an XMPP network MUST be represented as a JID
   (without a URI scheme) and not a [URI] or [IRI] as specified in
   [XMPP-URI]; the latter specification is provided only for
   identification and interaction outside the context of the XMPP wire
   protocol itself.

      Implementation Note: When dividing a JID into its component parts,
      an implementation needs to match the separator characters '@' and
      '/' before applying any transformation algorithms, which might
      decompose certain Unicode code points to the separator characters



Saint-Andre              Expires January 8, 2011                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft             XMPP Address Format                 July 2010


      (e.g., U+FE6B SMALL COMMERCIAL AT might decompose into U+0040
      COMMERCIAL AT).

2.2.  Domainpart

   The DOMAINPART of a JID is that portion after the '@' character (if
   any) and before the '/' character (if any); it is the primary
   identifier and is the only REQUIRED element of a JID (a mere
   domainpart is a valid JID).  Typically a domainpart identifies the
   "home" server to which clients connect for XML routing and data
   management functionality.  However, it is not necessary for an XMPP
   domainpart to identify an entity that provides core XMPP server
   functionality (e.g., a domainpart can identify an entity such as a
   multi-user chat service, a publish-subscribe service, or a user
   directory).

   The domainpart for every server or service that will communicate over
   a network SHOULD be a fully qualified domain name or "FQDN" (see
   [DNS]); although the domainpart MAY be either an Internet Protocol
   (IPv4 or IPv6) address or a text label that is resolvable on a local
   network (commonly called an "unqualified hostname"), it is possible
   that domainparts that are IP addresses will not be acceptable to
   other services for the sake of interdomain communication.
   Furthermore, domainparts that are unqualified hostnames MUST NOT be
   used on public networks but MAY be used on private networks.

      Note: If the domainpart includes a final character considered to
      be a label separator (dot) by [IDNA2003] or [DNS], this character
      MUST be stripped from the domainpart before the JID of which it is
      a part is used for the purpose of routing an XML stanza, comparing
      against another JID, or constructing an [XMPP-URI]; in particular,
      the character MUST be stripped before any other canonicalization
      steps are taken, such as application of the [NAMEPREP] profile of
      [STRINGPREP] or completion of the ToASCII operation as described
      in [IDNA2003].

   A domainpart consisting of a fully qualified domain name MUST be an
   "internationalized domain name" as defined in [IDNA2003], that is, "a
   domain name in which every label is an internationalized label".
   When preparing a text label (consisting of a sequence of properly-
   encoded Unicode code points) for representation as an
   internationalized label in the process of constructing an XMPP
   domainpart or comparing two XMPP domainparts, an application MUST
   ensure that for each text label it is possible to apply without
   failing the ToASCII operation specified in [IDNA2003] with the
   UseSTD3ASCIIRules flag set (thus forbidding ASCII code points other
   than letters, digits, and hyphens).  If the ToASCII operation can be
   applied without failing, then the label is an internationalized



Saint-Andre              Expires January 8, 2011                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft             XMPP Address Format                 July 2010


   label.  An internationalized domain name (and therefore an XMPP
   domainpart) is constructed from its constituent internationalized
   labels by following the rules specified in [IDNA2003].

      Note: The ToASCII operation includes application of the [NAMEPREP]
      profile of [STRINGPREP] and encoding using the algorithm specified
      in [PUNYCODE]; for details, see [IDNA2003].  Although the output
      of the ToASCII operation is not used in XMPP, it MUST be possible
      to apply that operation without failing.

   In the terms of IDNA2008 [IDNA-DEFS], the domainpart of a JID is a
   "domain name slot".

2.3.  Localpart

   The LOCALPART of a JID is an optional identifier placed before the
   domainpart and separated from the latter by the '@' character.
   Typically a localpart uniquely identifies the entity requesting and
   using network access provided by a server (i.e., a local account),
   although it can also represent other kinds of entities (e.g., a chat
   room associated with a multi-user chat service).  The entity
   represented by an XMPP localpart is addressed within the context of a
   specific domain.

   A localpart MUST NOT be zero bytes in length and MUST NOT be more
   than 1023 bytes in length.

   A localpart MUST be formatted such that the Nodeprep profile of
   [STRINGPREP] can be applied without failing (see Appendix A).  Before
   comparing two localparts, an application MUST first ensure that the
   Nodeprep profile has been applied to each identifier (the profile
   need not be applied each time a comparison is made, as long as it has
   been applied before comparison).

2.4.  Resourcepart

   The resourcepart of a JID is an optional identifier placed after the
   domainpart and separated from the latter by the '/' character.  A
   resourcepart can modify either a <localpart@domainpart> address or a
   mere <domainpart> address.  Typically a resourcepart uniquely
   identifies a specific connection (e.g., a device or location) or
   object (e.g., an occupant in a multi-user chat room) belonging to the
   entity associated with an XMPP localpart at a local domain.

   When an XMPP address does not include a resourcepart (i.e., when it
   is of the form <domainpart> or <localpart@domainpart>), it is
   referred to as a BARE JID.  When an XMPP address includes a
   resourcepart (i.e., when it is of the form <domain/resource> or



Saint-Andre              Expires January 8, 2011                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft             XMPP Address Format                 July 2010


   <localpart@domain/resource>), is referred to as a FULL JID.

   A resourcepart MUST NOT be zero bytes in length and MUST NOT be more
   than 1023 bytes in length.

   A resourcepart MUST be formatted such that the Resourceprep profile
   of [STRINGPREP] can be applied without failing (see Appendix B).
   Before comparing two resourceparts, an application MUST first ensure
   that the Resourceprep profile has been applied to each identifier
   (the profile need not be applied each time a comparison is made, as
   long as it has been applied before comparison).

      Note: For historical reasons, the term "resource identifier" is
      often used in XMPP to refer to the optional portion of an XMPP
      address that follows the domainpart and the "/" separator
      character; to help prevent confusion between an XMPP "resource
      identifier" and the meanings of "resource" and "identifier"
      provided in Section 1.1 of [URI], this specification uses the term
      "resourcepart" instead of "resource identifier" (as in RFC 3920).

   XMPP entities SHOULD consider resourceparts to be opaque strings and
   SHOULD NOT impute meaning to any given resourcepart.  In particular:

   o  Use of the '/' character as a separator between the domainpart and
      the resourcepart does not imply that XMPP addresses are
      hierarchical in the way that, say, HTTP addresses are
      hierarchical; thus for example an XMPP address of the form
      <localpart@domain/foo/bar> does not identify a resource "bar" that
      exists below a resource "foo" in a hierarchy of resources
      associated with the entity "localpart@domain".

   o  The '@' character is allowed in the resourcepart, and is often
      used in the "nick" shown in XMPP chatrooms.  For example, the JID
      <room@chat.example.com/user@host> describes an entity who is an
      occupant of the room <room@chat.example.com> with an (asserted)
      nick of <user@host>.  However, chatroom services do not
      necessarily check such an asserted nick against the occupant's
      real JID.


3.  Internationalization Considerations

   An XMPP server MUST support and enforce [IDNA2003] for domainparts,
   the Nodeprep (Appendix A) profile of [STRINGPREP] for localparts, and
   the Resourceprep (Appendix B) profile of [STRINGPREP] for
   resourceparts; this enables XMPP addresses to include a wide variety
   of characters outside the US-ASCII range.




Saint-Andre              Expires January 8, 2011                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft             XMPP Address Format                 July 2010


4.  Security Considerations

4.1.  Reuse of Stringprep

   The security considerations described in [STRINGPREP] apply to the
   Nodeprep (Appendix A) and Resourceprep (Appendix B) profiles defined
   in this document for XMPP localparts and resourceparts.  The security
   considerations described in [STRINGPREP] and [NAMEPREP] apply to the
   Nameprep profile that is re-used here for XMPP domainparts.

4.2.  Reuse of Unicode

   The security considerations described in [UNICODE-SEC] apply to the
   use of Unicode characters in XMPP addresses.

4.3.  Confusable Characters

   The Unicode and ISO/IEC 10646 repertoires have many characters that
   look similar (so-called "confusable characters").  In many cases,
   users of security protocols might perform visual matching, such as
   when comparing the names of trusted third parties.  Because it is
   impossible to map similar-looking characters without a great deal of
   context (such as knowing the fonts used), stringprep does nothing to
   map similar-looking characters together, nor to prohibit some
   characters because they look like others.  Some specific suggestions
   about identification and handling of confusable characters appear in
   the Unicode Security Considerations [UNICODE-SEC].

   A localpart can be employed as one part of an entity's address in
   XMPP.  One common usage is as the username of an instant messaging
   user; another is as the name of a multi-user chat room; and many
   other kinds of entities could use localparts as part of their
   addresses.  The security of such services could be compromised based
   on different interpretations of the internationalized localpart; for
   example, a user entering a single internationalized localpart could
   access another user's account information, or a user could gain
   access to a hidden or otherwise restricted chat room or service.

   A resourcepart can be employed as one part of an entity's address in
   XMPP.  One common usage is as the name for an instant messaging
   user's connected resource; another is as the nickname of a user in a
   multi-user chat room; and many other kinds of entities could use
   resourceparts as part of their addresses.  The security of such
   services could be compromised based on different interpretations of
   the internationalized resourcepart; for example, a user could attempt
   to initiate multiple connections with the same name, or a user could
   send a message to someone other than the intended recipient in a
   multi-user chat room.



Saint-Andre              Expires January 8, 2011                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft             XMPP Address Format                 July 2010


   Further discussion is provided under Section 4.4.2.

4.4.  Address Spoofing

   There are two forms of address spoofing: forging and mimicking.

4.4.1.  Address Forging

   In the context of XMPP technologies, address forging occurs when an
   entity is able to generate an XML stanza whose 'from' address does
   not correspond to the account credentials with which the entity
   authenticated onto the network (or an authorization identity provided
   during SASL negotiation).  For example, address forging occurs if an
   entity that authenticated as "juliet@im.example.com" is able to send
   XML stanzas from "nurse@im.example.com" or "romeo@example.net".

   Address forging is difficult in XMPP systems, given the requirement
   for sending servers to stamp 'from' addresses and for receiving
   servers to verify sending domains via server-to-server authentication
   (see [XMPP]).  However, address forging is not impossible, since a
   rogue server could forge JIDs at the sending domain by ignoring the
   stamping requirement.  Therefore, an entity outside the security
   perimeter of a particular server cannot reliably distinguish between
   bare JIDs of the form <localpart@domainpart> at that server and thus
   can authenticate only the domainpart of such JIDs with any level of
   assurance.  This specification does not define methods for
   discovering or counteracting such rogue servers.

   Furthermore, it is possible for an attacker to forge JIDs at other
   domains by means of a DNS poisoning attack if DNS security extensions
   [DNSSEC] are not used.

4.4.2.  Address Mimicking

   Address mimicking occus when an entity provides legitimate
   authentication credentials for and sends XML stanzas from an account
   whose JID appears to a human user to be the same as another JID.  For
   example, in some XMPP clients the address "paypa1@example.org"
   (spelled with the number one as the final character of the localpart)
   might appear to be the same as "paypal@example.org (spelled with the
   lower-case version of the letter "L"), especially on casual visual
   inspection; this phenomenon is sometimes called "typejacking".  A
   more sophisticated example of address mimicking might involve the use
   of characters from outside the US-ASCII range, such as the Cherokee
   characters U+13DA U+13A2 U+13B5 U+13AC U+13A2 U+13AC U+13D2 instead
   of the US-ASCII characters "STPETER".

   In some examples of address mimicking, it is unlikely that the



Saint-Andre              Expires January 8, 2011                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft             XMPP Address Format                 July 2010


   average user could tell the difference between the real JID and the
   fake JID.  (Indeed, there is no way to distinguish with full
   certainty which is the fake JID and which is the real JID; in some
   communication contexts, the JID with Cherokee characters might be the
   real JID and the JID with US-ASCII characters might thus appear to be
   the fake JID.)  Because JIDs can contain almost any Unicode
   character, it can be relatively easy to mimic some JIDs in XMPP
   systems.  The possibility of address mimicking introduces security
   vulnerabilities of the kind that have also plagued the World Wide
   Web, specifically the phenomenon known as phishing.

   As noted in [IDNA-DEFS], "there are no comprehensive technical
   solutions to the problems of confusable characters".  Mimicked JIDs
   that involve characters from only one character set or from the
   character set typically employed by a particular user are not easy to
   combat (e.g., the simple typejacking attack previously described,
   which relies on a surface similarity between the characters "1" and
   "l" in some presentations).  However, mimicked addresses that involve
   characters from more than one character set, or from a character set
   not typically employed by a particular user, can be mitigated
   somewhat through intelligent presentation.  In particular, every
   human user of an XMPP technology presumably has a preferred language
   (or, in some cases, a small set of preferred languages), which an
   XMPP application SHOULD gather either explicitly from the user or
   implicitly via the operating system of the user's device.
   Furthermore, every language has a range (or a small set of ranges) of
   characters normally used to represent that language in textual form.
   Therefore, an XMPP application SHOULD warn the user when presenting a
   JID that uses characters outside the normal range of the user's
   preferred language(s).  This recommendation is not intended to
   discourage communication across language communities; instead, it
   recognizes the existence of such language communities and encourages
   due caution when presenting unfamiliar character sets to human users.


5.  IANA Considerations

   The following sections update the registrations provided in
   [RFC3920].

5.1.  Nodeprep Profile of Stringprep

   The Nodeprep profile of stringprep is defined under Nodeprep
   (Appendix A).  The IANA has registered Nodeprep in the stringprep
   profile registry.

   Name of this profile:




Saint-Andre              Expires January 8, 2011               [Page 10]

Internet-Draft             XMPP Address Format                 July 2010


      Nodeprep

   RFC in which the profile is defined:

      XXXX

   Indicator whether or not this is the newest version of the profile:

      This is the first version of Nodeprep

5.2.  Resourceprep Profile of Stringprep

   The Resourceprep profile of stringprep is defined under Resourceprep
   (Appendix B).  The IANA has registered Resourceprep in the stringprep
   profile registry.

   Name of this profile:

      Resourceprep

   RFC in which the profile is defined:

      XXXX

   Indicator whether or not this is the newest version of the profile:

      This is the first version of Resourceprep


6.  Conformance Requirements

   This section describes a protocol feature set that summarizes the
   conformance requirements of this specification.  This feature set is
   appropriate for use in software certification, interoperability
   testing, and implementation reports.  For each feature, this section
   provides the following information:

   o  A human-readable name

   o  An informational description

   o  A reference to the particular section of this document that
      normatively defines the feature

   o  Whether the feature applies to the Client role, the Server role,
      or both (where "N/A" signifies that the feature is not applicable
      to the specified role)




Saint-Andre              Expires January 8, 2011               [Page 11]

Internet-Draft             XMPP Address Format                 July 2010


   o  Whether the feature MUST or SHOULD be implemented, where the
      capitalized terms are to be understood as described in [KEYWORDS]

   The feature set specified here attempts to adhere to the concepts and
   formats proposed by Larry Masinter within the IETF's NEWTRK Working
   Group in 2005, as captured in [INTEROP].  Although this feature set
   is more detailed than called for by [REPORTS], it provides a suitable
   basis for the generation of implementation reports to be submitted in
   support of advancing this specification from Proposed Standard to
   Draft Standard in accordance with [PROCESS].

   Feature:  address-domain-length
   Description:  Ensure that the domainpart of an XMPP address is at
      least one byte in length and at most 1023 bytes in length.
   Section:  Section 2.2
   Roles:  Both MUST.

   Feature:  address-domain-prep
   Description:  Ensure that the domainpart of an XMPP address conforms
      to the Nameprep profile of Stringprep.
   Section:  Section 2.2
   Roles:  Client SHOULD, Server MUST.

   Feature:  address-localpart-length
   Description:  Ensure that the localpart of an XMPP address is at
      least one byte in length and at most 1023 bytes in length.
   Section:  Section 2.3
   Roles:  Both MUST.

   Feature:  address-localpart-prep
   Description:  Ensure that the localpart of an XMPP address conforms
      to the Nodeprep profile of Stringprep.
   Section:  Section 2.3
   Roles:  Client SHOULD, Server MUST.

   Feature:  address-resource-length
   Description:  Ensure that the resourcepart of an XMPP address is at
      least one byte in length and at most 1023 bytes in length.
   Section:  Section 2.4
   Roles:  Both MUST.

   Feature:  address-resource-prep
   Description:  Ensure that the resourcepart of an XMPP address
      conforms to the Resourceprep profile of Stringprep.







Saint-Andre              Expires January 8, 2011               [Page 12]

Internet-Draft             XMPP Address Format                 July 2010


   Section:  Section 2.2
   Roles:  Client SHOULD, Server MUST.


7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [ABNF]     Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234, January 2008.

   [IDNA2003]
              Faltstrom, P., Hoffman, P., and A. Costello,
              "Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)",
              RFC 3490, March 2003.

   [KEYWORDS]
              Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [NAMEPREP]
              Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, "Nameprep: A Stringprep
              Profile for Internationalized Domain Names (IDN)",
              RFC 3491, March 2003.

   [STRINGPREP]
              Hoffman, P. and M. Blanchet, "Preparation of
              Internationalized Strings ("stringprep")", RFC 3454,
              December 2002.

   [UNICODE]  The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard, Version
              3.2.0", 2000.

              The Unicode Standard, Version 3.2.0 is defined by The
              Unicode Standard, Version 3.0 (Reading, MA, Addison-
              Wesley, 2000.  ISBN 0-201-61633-5), as amended by the
              Unicode Standard Annex #27: Unicode 3.1
              (http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr27/) and by the Unicode
              Standard Annex #28: Unicode 3.2
              (http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr28/).

   [UNICODE-SEC]
              The Unicode Consortium, "Unicode Technical Report #36:
              Unicode Security Considerations", 2008.

   [UTF-8]    Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
              10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.




Saint-Andre              Expires January 8, 2011               [Page 13]

Internet-Draft             XMPP Address Format                 July 2010


   [XMPP]     Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
              Protocol (XMPP): Core", draft-ietf-xmpp-3920bis-09 (work
              in progress), June 2010.

7.2.  Informative References

   [DNS]      Mockapetris, P., "Domain names - implementation and
              specification", STD 13, RFC 1035, November 1987.

   [DNSSEC]   Arends, R., Austein, R., Larson, M., Massey, D., and S.
              Rose, "DNS Security Introduction and Requirements",
              RFC 4033, March 2005.

   [IDNA-DEFS]
              Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names for
              Applications (IDNA): Definitions and Document Framework",
              draft-ietf-idnabis-defs-13 (work in progress),
              January 2010.

   [IDNA-PROTO]
              Klensin, J., "Internationalized Domain Names in
              Applications (IDNA): Protocol",
              draft-ietf-idnabis-protocol-18 (work in progress),
              January 2010.

   [INTEROP]  Masinter, L., "Formalizing IETF Interoperability
              Reporting", draft-ietf-newtrk-interop-reports-00 (work in
              progress), October 2005.

   [IRI]      Duerst, M. and M. Suignard, "Internationalized Resource
              Identifiers (IRIs)", RFC 3987, January 2005.

   [PROCESS]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
              3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

   [PUNYCODE]
              Costello, A., "Punycode: A Bootstring encoding of Unicode
              for Internationalized Domain Names in Applications
              (IDNA)", RFC 3492, March 2003.

   [REPORTS]  Dusseault, L. and R. Sparks, "Guidance on Interoperation
              and Implementation Reports for Advancement to Draft
              Standard", BCP 9, RFC 5657, September 2009.

   [RFC3920]  Saint-Andre, P., Ed., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
              Protocol (XMPP): Core", RFC 3920, October 2004.

   [URI]      Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter, "Uniform



Saint-Andre              Expires January 8, 2011               [Page 14]

Internet-Draft             XMPP Address Format                 July 2010


              Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax", STD 66,
              RFC 3986, January 2005.

   [XEP-0029]
              Kaes, C., "Definition of Jabber Identifiers (JIDs)", XSF
              XEP 0029, October 2003.

   [XEP-0030]
              Hildebrand, J., Millard, P., Eatmon, R., and P. Saint-
              Andre, "Service Discovery", XSF XEP 0030, June 2008.

   [XEP-0045]
              Saint-Andre, P., "Multi-User Chat", XSF XEP 0045,
              January in progress, last updated 2010.

   [XEP-0060]
              Millard, P., Saint-Andre, P., and R. Meijer, "Publish-
              Subscribe", XSF XEP 0060, September 2008.

   [XML]      Paoli, J., Maler, E., Sperberg-McQueen, C., Yergeau, F.,
              and T. Bray, "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0 (Fourth
              Edition)", World Wide Web Consortium Recommendation REC-
              xml-20060816, August 2006,
              <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml-20060816>.

   [XMPP-URI]
              Saint-Andre, P., "Internationalized Resource Identifiers
              (IRIs) and Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) for the
              Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP)",
              RFC 5122, February 2008.


Appendix A.  Nodeprep

A.1.  Introduction

   This appendix defines the "Nodeprep" profile of stringprep.  As such,
   it specifies processing rules that will enable users to enter
   internationalized localparts in the Extensible Messaging and Presence
   Protocol (XMPP) and have the highest chance of getting the content of
   the strings correct.  (An XMPP localpart is the optional portion of
   an XMPP address that precedes an XMPP domainpart and the '@'
   separator; it is often but not exclusively associated with an instant
   messaging username.)  These processing rules are intended only for
   XMPP localparts and are not intended for arbitrary text or any other
   aspect of an XMPP address.

   This profile defines the following, as required by [STRINGPREP]:



Saint-Andre              Expires January 8, 2011               [Page 15]

Internet-Draft             XMPP Address Format                 July 2010


   o  The intended applicability of the profile: internationalized
      localparts within XMPP
   o  The character repertoire that is the input and output to
      stringprep: Unicode 3.2, specified in Section 2 of this Appendix
   o  The mappings used: specified in Section 3
   o  The Unicode normalization used: specified in Section 4
   o  The characters that are prohibited as output: specified in Section
      5
   o  Bidirectional character handling: specified in Section 6

A.2.  Character Repertoire

   This profile uses Unicode 3.2 with the list of unassigned code points
   being Table A.1, both defined in Appendix A of [STRINGPREP].

A.3.  Mapping

   This profile specifies mapping using the following tables from
   [STRINGPREP]:

      Table B.1
      Table B.2

A.4.  Normalization

   This profile specifies the use of Unicode normalization form KC, as
   described in [STRINGPREP].

A.5.  Prohibited Output

   This profile specifies the prohibition of using the following tables
   from [STRINGPREP].

      Table C.1.1
      Table C.1.2
      Table C.2.1
      Table C.2.2
      Table C.3
      Table C.4
      Table C.5
      Table C.6
      Table C.7
      Table C.8
      Table C.9

   In addition, the following additional Unicode characters are also
   prohibited:




Saint-Andre              Expires January 8, 2011               [Page 16]

Internet-Draft             XMPP Address Format                 July 2010


      U+0022 (QUOTATION MARK), i.e., "
      U+0026 (AMPERSAND), i.e., &
      U+0027 (APOSTROPHE), i.e., '
      U+002F (SOLIDUS), i.e., /
      U+003A (COLON), i.e., :
      U+003C (LESS-THAN SIGN), i.e., <
      U+003E (GREATER-THAN SIGN), i.e., >
      U+0040 (COMMERCIAL AT), i.e., @

A.6.  Bidirectional Characters

   This profile specifies checking bidirectional strings, as described
   in Section 6 of [STRINGPREP].

A.7.  Notes

   Because the additional characters prohibited by Nodeprep are
   prohibited after normalization, an implementation MUST NOT enable a
   human user to input any Unicode code point whose decomposition
   includes those characters; such code points include but are not
   necessarily limited to the following (refer to [UNICODE] for complete
   information).

   o  U+2100 (ACCOUNT OF)
   o  U+2101 (ADDRESSED TO THE SUBJECT)
   o  U+2105 (CARE OF)
   o  U+2106 (CADA UNA)
   o  U+226E (NOT LESS-THAN)
   o  U+226F (NOT GREATER-THAN)
   o  U+2A74 (DOUBLE COLON EQUAL)
   o  U+FE13 (SMALL COLON)
   o  U+FE60 (SMALL AMPERSAND)
   o  U+FE64 (SMALL LESS-THAN SIGN)
   o  U+FE65 (SMALL GREATER-THAN SIGN)
   o  U+FE6B (SMALL COMMERCIAL AT)
   o  U+FF02 (FULLWIDTH QUOTATION MARK)
   o  U+FF06 (FULLWIDTH AMPERSAND)
   o  U+FF07 (FULLWIDTH APOSTROPHE)
   o  U+FF0F (FULLWIDTH SOLIDUS)
   o  U+FF1A (FULLWIDTH COLON)
   o  U+FF1C (FULLWIDTH LESS-THAN SIGN)
   o  U+FF1E (FULLWIDTH GREATER-THAN SIGN)
   o  U+FF20 (FULLWIDTH COMMERCIAL AT)


Appendix B.  Resourceprep





Saint-Andre              Expires January 8, 2011               [Page 17]

Internet-Draft             XMPP Address Format                 July 2010


B.1.  Introduction

   This appendix defines the "Resourceprep" profile of stringprep.  As
   such, it specifies processing rules that will enable users to enter
   internationalized resourceparts in the Extensible Messaging and
   Presence Protocol (XMPP) and have the highest chance of getting the
   content of the strings correct.  (An XMPP resourcepart is the
   optional portion of an XMPP address that follows an XMPP domainpart
   and the '/' separator.)  These processing rules are intended only for
   XMPP resourceparts and are not intended for arbitrary text or any
   other aspect of an XMPP address.

   This profile defines the following, as required by [STRINGPREP]:

   o  The intended applicability of the profile: internationalized
      resourceparts within XMPP
   o  The character repertoire that is the input and output to
      stringprep: Unicode 3.2, specified in Section 2 of this Appendix
   o  The mappings used: specified in Section 3
   o  The Unicode normalization used: specified in Section 4
   o  The characters that are prohibited as output: specified in Section
      5
   o  Bidirectional character handling: specified in Section 6

B.2.  Character Repertoire

   This profile uses Unicode 3.2 with the list of unassigned code points
   being Table A.1, both defined in Appendix A of [STRINGPREP].

B.3.  Mapping

   This profile specifies mapping using the following tables from
   [STRINGPREP]:

      Table B.1

B.4.  Normalization

   This profile specifies the use of Unicode normalization form KC, as
   described in [STRINGPREP].

B.5.  Prohibited Output

   This profile specifies the prohibition of using the following tables
   from [STRINGPREP].






Saint-Andre              Expires January 8, 2011               [Page 18]

Internet-Draft             XMPP Address Format                 July 2010


      Table C.1.2
      Table C.2.1
      Table C.2.2
      Table C.3
      Table C.4
      Table C.5
      Table C.6
      Table C.7
      Table C.8
      Table C.9

B.6.  Bidirectional Characters

   This profile specifies checking bidirectional strings, as described
   in Section 6 of [STRINGPREP].


Appendix C.  Differences From RFC 3920

   Based on consensus derived from implementation and deployment
   experience as well as formal interoperability testing, the following
   substantive modifications were made from RFC 3920.

   o  Corrected the ABNF syntax to (1) ensure consistency with [URI] and
      [IRI], and (2) prevent zero-length localparts, domainparts, and
      resourceparts.
   o  To avoid confusion with the term "node" as used in [XEP-0030] and
      [XEP-0060], changed the term "node identifier" to "localpart" (but
      retained the name "Nodeprep" for backward compatibility).
   o  To avoid confusion with the terms "resource" and "identifier" as
      used in [URI], changed the term "resource identifier" to
      "resourcepart".
   o  Corrected the nameprep processing rules to require use of the
      UseSTD3ASCIIRules flag.


Appendix D.  Copying Conditions

   Regarding this entire document or any portion of it, the author makes
   no guarantees and is not responsible for any damage resulting from
   its use.  The author grants irrevocable permission to anyone to use,
   modify, and distribute it in any way that does not diminish the
   rights of anyone else to use, modify, and distribute it, provided
   that redistributed derivative works do not contain misleading author
   or version information.  Derivative works need not be licensed under
   similar terms.





Saint-Andre              Expires January 8, 2011               [Page 19]

Internet-Draft             XMPP Address Format                 July 2010


Author's Address

   Peter Saint-Andre
   Cisco Systems, Inc.
   1899 Wyknoop Street, Suite 600
   Denver, CO  80202
   USA

   Phone: +1-303-308-3282
   Email: psaintan@cisco.com









































Saint-Andre              Expires January 8, 2011               [Page 20]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/