[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00

Network Working Group                                     P. Saint-Andre
Internet-Draft                                                       JSF
Intended status: Informational                          October 13, 2006
Expires: April 16, 2007


   Interoperability Report for the Extensible Messaging and Presence
                            Protocol (XMPP)
                draft-saintandre-xmpp-interop-report-00

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 16, 2007.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Abstract

   This document provides an interoperability report regarding the
   Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP), as that technology
   is specified in RFCs 3920 and 3921 (and their proposed successors).
   This report specifies both a protocol feature set and a protocol
   implementation report, in accordance with the concepts and formats
   proposed by Larry Masinter within the NEWTRK Working Group.




Saint-Andre              Expires April 16, 2007                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft             XMPP Interop Report              October 2006


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Feature Set  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.1.  Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
       2.1.1.  Domain Identifier  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
       2.1.2.  Node Identifier  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
       2.1.3.  Resource Identifier  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.2.  XML Streams  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       2.2.1.  TCP Binding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       2.2.2.  Namespaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
       2.2.3.  Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
       2.2.4.  Stream Features  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
       2.2.5.  Stream Errors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.3.  TLS Negotiation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.4.  SASL Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.5.  Mandatory TLS and SASL Technologies  . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     2.6.  Resource Binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     2.7.  Server Dialback  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     2.8.  XML Usage  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     2.9.  XML Stanzas  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       2.9.1.  Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       2.9.2.  Message Stanzas  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
       2.9.3.  Presence Stanzas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       2.9.4.  IQ Stanzas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       2.9.5.  Stanza Errors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       2.9.6.  Extended Namespaces  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       2.9.7.  Stanza Handling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     2.10. Rosters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   3.  Implementation Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   4.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   5.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 15

















Saint-Andre              Expires April 16, 2007                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft             XMPP Interop Report              October 2006


1.  Introduction

   The Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) is an
   Extensible Markup Language technology for near-real-time messaging,
   presence, and request-response services.  The core XML streaming
   technology is specified in [RFC3920] and the features needed to
   implement basic instant messaging and presence applications are
   specified in [RFC3921].  The basic syntax and semantics of XMPP were
   developed originally within the Jabber open-source community, mainly
   in 1999.  In November 2002, the XMPP WG was chartered with developing
   an adaptation of the core Jabber protocol that would be suitable as
   an IETF instant messaging (IM) and presence technology.  In October
   2004, the IETF published the XMPP RFCs.  Since then, existing server,
   client, and library implementations (which previously used "XMPP
   0.9") have been upgraded to conform to XMPP 1.0 as specified in RFC
   3920 and RFC 3921, and new implementations also have been developed.
   Many of these implementations have been widely deployed within
   organizations and by service providers (there are at this time
   estimated to be well over 50,000 server deployments and perhaps 40 to
   50 million end users).  Therefore, the Internet community has quite a
   bit of implementation and deployment experience with XMPP.
   Furthermore, in July 2006, the first in-person interoperability
   testing event was held, and both online interoperability testing
   processes and future in-person testing events are planned as well.

   Work has begun on updating the XMPP specifications (see [rfc3920bis]
   and [rfc3921bis]).  The proposed changes are based on updates to
   several of the technologies upon which XMPP depends, interoperability
   and deployment experience, and formal interoperability testing.
   Where appropriate, this interoperability report discusses the
   relevant feature as specified in RFC 3920 or RFC 3921, experience and
   testing results related to that feature, and modifications to the
   feature as specified in rfc3920bis or rfc3921bis.

   This interoperability report attempts to adhere to the concepts and
   formats proposed by Larry Masinter within the IETF's NEWTRK Working
   Group in 2005 (see [INTEROP]).  Therefore this document contains two
   main sections:

   o  Protocol Feature Set -- this section describes the set of
      specifications and the features defined therein that constitute
      the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol for the purpose of
      inteorperability testing.
   o  Protocol Implementation Reports -- this section describes the
      results of implementation and deployment experience and
      interoperability testing for each feature, with one report for
      each tested codebase.




Saint-Andre              Expires April 16, 2007                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft             XMPP Interop Report              October 2006


   Although the core XML streaming layer specified in RFC 3920 is not
   necessarily tied to the instant messaging and presence semantics
   specified in RFC 3921, this interoperability report treats them as a
   single protocol.


2.  Feature Set

   For the purpose of interoperability testing, the Extensible Messaging
   and Presence Protocol is taken to be defined by [RFC3920] and
   [RFC3921], where appropriate as updated by [rfc3920bis] and
   [rfc3921bis].

   The following subsections provide a first attempt at specifying the
   particular features of XMPP.  Because XMPP uses a client-server
   architecture, each feature is labelled as applying to the client
   role, the server role, or both.  In addition, each feature is
   labelled as REQUIRED, RECOMMENDED, or OPTIONAL, where those terms are
   to be understood as described in [RFC2119].

2.1.  Addresses

   XMPP addresses are of the form [node@]domain[/resource].  Rules for
   each portion of the address are specified in Section 3 of RFC 3920.
   The following features apply.

2.1.1.  Domain Identifier

   As specified in Section 3.2 of RFC 3920:

   1.  The domain identifier portion of an XMPP address must conform to
       the Nameprep profile of Stringprep.  Conformance with this
       feature is REQUIRED for servers and RECOMMENDED for clients.
   2.  The domain identifier portion of an XMPP address must not be more
       than 1023 bytes in length.  Conformance with this feature is
       REQUIRED for clients and for servers.

2.1.2.  Node Identifier

   As specified in Section 3.3 of RFC 3920:

   1.  The node identifier portion of an XMPP address must conform to
       the Nodeprep profile of Stringprep.  Conformance with this
       feature is REQUIRED for servers and RECOMMENDED for clients.
   2.  The node identifier portion of an XMPP address must not be more
       than 1023 bytes in length.  Conformance with this feature is
       REQUIRED for clients and for servers.




Saint-Andre              Expires April 16, 2007                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft             XMPP Interop Report              October 2006


2.1.3.  Resource Identifier

   As specified in Section 3.4 of RFC 3920:

   1.  The resource identifier portion of an XMPP address must conform
       to the Resourceprep profile of Stringprep.  Conformance with this
       feature is REQUIRED for servers and RECOMMENDED for clients.
   2.  The resource identifier portion of an XMPP address must not be
       more than 1023 bytes in length.  Conformance with this feature is
       REQUIRED for clients and for servers.

2.2.  XML Streams

   At root, XMPP is a technology for streaming XML data between a client
   and a server or between two servers.  Thus the management of XML
   streams is a core aspect of XMPP.  The following features apply.

2.2.1.  TCP Binding

   As specified in Section 4.2 of RFC 3920:

   1.  XML streams are communicated over a TCP connection.  Conformance
       with this feature is REQUIRED for clients and for servers.

2.2.2.  Namespaces

   As specified in Section 4.5 and Section 11.2.2 of RFC 3920:

   1.  An XML stream must be qualified by a streams namespace of
       'http://etherx.jabber.org/streams'.  Conformance with this
       feature is REQUIRED for clients and for servers.
   2.  All elements within the streams namespace must be prefixed with a
       namespace prefix.  Conformance with this feature is REQUIRED for
       clients and for servers.
   3.  The streams namespace prefix should be "stream:".  Conformance
       with this feature is RECOMMENDED for clients and for servers.
   4.  An XML stream must have a default namespace other than the
       streams namespace.  Conformance with this feature is REQUIRED for
       clients and for servers.
   5.  An implementation must support 'jabber:client' as a default
       namespace.  Conformance with this feature is REQUIRED for clients
       and for servers.
   6.  An implementation must support 'jabber:server' as a default
       namespace.  Conformance with this feature is REQUIRED for servers
       (the feature does not apply to clients).






Saint-Andre              Expires April 16, 2007                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft             XMPP Interop Report              October 2006


2.2.3.  Attributes

   As specified in Section 4.4 and Section 4.4.1 of RFC 3920:

   1.  An initiating entity should include a 'from' attribute in the
       initial stream header it sends to a receiving entity.
       Conformance with this feature is RECOMMENDED for clients and for
       servers.  (Note: This feature was modified in rfc3920bis as
       compared to RFC 3920, since implementation and deployment
       experience has shown that including the 'from' attribute makes
       stream establishment more efficient.)
   2.  A receiving entity must include a 'from' attribute in the
       response stream header it sends to an initiating entity.
       Conformance with this feature is REQUIRED for servers (the
       feature does not apply to clients).
   3.  An initiating entity should include a 'to' attribute in the
       initial stream header it sends to a receiving entity.
       Conformance with this feature is RECOMMENDED for clients and for
       servers.
   4.  A receiving entity should include a 'to' attribute in the
       response stream header it sends to an initiating entity.
       Conformance with this feature is RECOMMENDED for servers (the
       feature does not apply to clients).  (Note: This feature was
       modified in rfc3920bis as compared to RFC 3920, since
       implementation and deployment experience has shown that including
       the 'to' attribute makes stream establishment more efficient.)
   5.  A receiving entity must include an 'id' attribute in the header
       for the response stream it sends to an initiating entity.
       Conformance with this feature is REQUIRED for servers (the
       feature does not apply to clients).
   6.  The value of the 'id' attribute must be unique within the
       receiving entity.  Conformance with this feature is REQUIRED for
       servers (the feature does not apply to clients).
   7.  An initiating entity should include an 'xml:lang' attribute in
       the initial stream headers that it generates.  Conformance with
       this feature is RECOMMENDED for clients and for servers.
   8.  An initiating entity must include a 'version' attribute whose
       value is "1.0" (for XMPP 1.0 support) in the initial stream
       headers it generates.  Conformance with this feature is REQUIRED
       for clients and for servers.
   9.  If the stream header that a receiving entity receives from an
       initiating entity includes a 'version' attribute whose value is
       "1.0", the receiving entity must include a 'version' attribute
       whose value is "1.0" in the response stream headers it generates.
       Conformance with this feature is REQUIRED for servers.






Saint-Andre              Expires April 16, 2007                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft             XMPP Interop Report              October 2006


2.2.4.  Stream Features

   As specified in Section 4.6 of RFC 3920:

   1.  A receiving entity shall advertise the stream-related features it
       supports after sending a response stream header.  Conformance
       with this feature is REQUIRED for servers (the feature does not
       apply to clients).

2.2.5.  Stream Errors

   As specified in Section 4.7 of RFC 3920:

   1.  An entity shall generate a stream error (followed by a closing
       stream tag and termination of the TCP connection) when it detects
       a stream-related error condition.  Conformance with this feature
       is REQUIRED for clients and for servers.
   2.  The syntax for stream errors shall follow the definition in
       Section 4.7.2 of RFC 3920.  Conformance with this feature is
       REQUIRED for clients and for servers.

2.3.  TLS Negotiation

   As specified in Section 5 of RFC 3920:

   1.  An implementation must support Transport Layer Security (TLS) for
       channel encryption of XML streams.  Conformance with this feature
       is REQUIRED for clients and for servers.
   2.  TLS negotiation between two servers must not proceed until the
       DNS hostnames are resolved.  Conformance with this feature is
       REQUIRED for servers (the feature does not apply to clients).
   3.  There must be no whitespace between XML elements sent during TLS
       negotiation.  Conformance with this feature is REQUIRED for
       clients and for servers.
   4.  Certificate validation must follow the rules in Section 14.2 of
       RFC 3920.  Conformance with this feature is REQUIRED for clients
       and for servers.
   5.  Upon successful TLS negotiation, the initiating entity must send
       a new initial stream header to the receiving entity.  Conformance
       with this feature is REQUIRED for clients and for servers.

2.4.  SASL Negotiation

   As specified in Section 6 of RFC 3920:

   1.  An implementation must support the Simple Authentication and
       Security Layer (SASL) for authentication of XML streams.
       Conformance with this feature is REQUIRED for clients and for



Saint-Andre              Expires April 16, 2007                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft             XMPP Interop Report              October 2006


       servers.
   2.  SASL negotiation between two servers must not proceed until the
       DNS hostnames are resolved.  Conformance with this feature is
       REQUIRED for servers (the feature does not apply to clients).
   3.  There must be no whitespace between XML elements sent during SASL
       negotiation.  Conformance with this feature is REQUIRED for
       clients and for servers.
   4.  Upon successful SASL negotiation, the initiating entity must send
       a new initial stream header to the receiving entity.  Conformance
       with this feature is REQUIRED for clients and for servers.
   5.  An implementation must support the SAL error conditions specified
       in Section 6.4 of RFC 3920.  Conformance with this feature is
       REQUIRED for clients and for servers.

2.5.  Mandatory TLS and SASL Technologies

   As specified in Section 14.7 of RFC 3920:

   1.  An implementation must support the SASL DIGEST-MD5 mechanism.
       Conformance with this feature is REQUIRED for clients and for
       servers.
   2.  An implementation must support the TLS_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA
       cipher.  Conformance with this feature is REQUIRED for clients
       and for servers.
   3.  An implementation must support TLS plus SASL PLAIN.  Conformance
       with this feature is REQUIRED for clients and for servers.
       (Note: This feature was added in rfc3920bis as compared to RFC
       3920, since implementation of SASL EXTERNAL is uncommon in XMPP
       clients, in part because underlying security features such as
       X.509 certificates are not yet widely deployed.)
   4.  An implementation must support TLS plus SASL EXTERNAL for server-
       to-server connections.  Conformance with this feature is REQUIRED
       for servers.

2.6.  Resource Binding

   As specified in Section 7 of RFC 3920:

   1.  An implementation must support resource binding for client-to-
       server connections.  Conformance with this feature is REQUIRED
       for clients and for servers.
   2.  An implementation must be able to request generation of a
       resource (rather than providing it).  Conformance with this
       feature is RECOMMENDED for clients (the feature does not apply to
       servers).
   3.  An implementation must be able to generate a resource on request.
       Conformance with this feature is REQUIRED for servers (the
       feature does not apply to clients).



Saint-Andre              Expires April 16, 2007                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft             XMPP Interop Report              October 2006


   4.  An implementation should be able to bind multiple resources to an
       XML stream as specified in Section 7.1 of rfc3920bis.
       Conformance with this feature is RECOMMENDED for servers and
       OPTIONAL for clients.

2.7.  Server Dialback

   As specified in Section 8 of RFC 3920:

   1.  An implementation should support server dialback for server-to-
       server connections.  Conformance with this feature is RECOMMENDED
       for servers (the feature does not apply to clients).
   2.  An implementation should use the HMAC-256 algorithm to generate
       dialback keys, as specified in Appendix C.4 of rfc3920bis.
       Conformance with this feature is RECOMMENDED for servers (the
       feature does not apply to clients).

2.8.  XML Usage

   1.  As specified in Section 11 of RFC 3920, an implementation must
       not inject XML comments, processing instructions, internal or
       external DTD subsets, internal or external entity references
       other than the predefined XML entities, or XML character data or
       attribute values containing unescaped characters that map to the
       predefined entities.  Conformance with this feature is REQUIRED
       for clients and for servers.
   2.  As specified in Section 11.1 of rfc3920bis, an implementation
       must return a <restricted-xml/> stream error if it receives XML
       comments, processing instructions, internal or external DTD
       subsets, internal or external entity references other than the
       predefined XML entities, or XML character data or attribute
       values containing unescaped characters that map to the predefined
       entities.  Conformance with this feature is REQUIRED for clients
       and for servers.  (Note: This feature was modified in rfc3920bis
       as compared to RFC 3920, since ignoring such data rather than
       returning an error is inconsistent with the stream error handling
       recommendations in Section 4.7 of RFC 3920.)

2.9.  XML Stanzas

2.9.1.  Attributes

   As specified in Section 9.1 of RFC 3920:

   1.  An implementation must handle the <presence/>, <message/>, and
       <iq/> stanza types.  Conformance with this feature is REQUIRED
       for clients and for servers.




Saint-Andre              Expires April 16, 2007                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft             XMPP Interop Report              October 2006


   2.  An implementation must support the 'to' attribute on all stanza
       types to encapsulate the intended recipient's address, as
       specified in Section 9.1.1 of RFC 3920.  Conformance with this
       feature is REQUIRED for clients and servers.
   3.  An implementation must support the 'from' attribute on all stanza
       types to encapsulate the sender's address, as specified in
       Section 9.1.2 of RFC 3920.  Conformance with this feature is
       REQUIRED for clients and servers.
   4.  In streams qualified by the 'jabber:client' namespace, the
       receiving entity must validate the address of the sender by
       verifying that it is that of a connected resource for the sending
       entity or by stamping the 'from' value itself, as specified in
       Section 9.1.2 of RFC 3920.  Conformance with this feature is
       REQUIRED for servers (the feature does not apply to clients).
   5.  In streams qualified by the 'jabber:server' namespace, the
       sending entity must ensure that every stanza it sends possesses a
       'from' attribute and that the domain identifier portion of the
       encapsulated JID value matches a hostname of the server, as
       specified in Section 9.1.2 of RFC 3920.  Conformance with this
       feature is REQUIRED for servers (the feature does not apply to
       clients).
   6.  In streams qualified by the 'jabber:server' namespace, the
       receiving entity must ensure that every stanza it receives
       possesses a 'from' attribute and that the domain identifier
       portion of the encapsulated JID value matches a hostname of the
       sending entity, as specified in Section 9.1.2 of RFC 3920.
       Conformance with this feature is REQUIRED for servers (the
       feature does not apply to clients).
   7.  An XML stanza should possess an 'xml:lang' attribute, as
       specified in section 9.1.5 of RFC 3920.  Conformance with this
       feature is RECOMMENDED for clients and for servers.

2.9.2.  Message Stanzas

   As specified in Section 2.1 of RFC 3921 (Section 5 of rfc3921bis):

   1.  An implementation must differentiate between messages of type
       "normal", "chat", "groupchat", "headline", and "error".
       Conformance with this feature is REQUIRED for clients (the
       feature does not apply to servers).
   2.  An implementation must support the <body/> child element of the
       <message/> stanza.  Conformance with this feature is REQUIRED for
       clients (the feature does not apply to servers).
   3.  An implementation should support the <subject/> and <thread/>
       child elements of the <message/> stanza.  Conformance with this
       feature is RECOMMENDED for clients (the feature does not apply to
       servers).




Saint-Andre              Expires April 16, 2007                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft             XMPP Interop Report              October 2006


2.9.3.  Presence Stanzas

   As specified in Section 6 of RFC 3921:

   1.  An implementation must support <presence/> stanzas with no 'type'
       attribute to signal availability and of type "unavailable" to
       signal lack of availability.  Conformance with this feature is
       REQUIRED for clients and for servers.
   2.  An implementation must support <presence/> stanzas of type
       "subscribe", "unsubscribe", "subscribed", and "unsubscribed" to
       manage presence subscriptions.  Conformance with this feature is
       REQUIRED for clients and for servers.
   3.  An implementation must support <presence/> stanzas of type
       "probe" to discover the presence of subscribed entities.
       Conformance with this feature is REQUIRED for servers (the
       feature does not apply to clients).

2.9.4.  IQ Stanzas

   As specified in Section 9.2.3 of RFC 3920:

   1.  An <iq/> stanza must possess an 'id' attribute.  Conformance with
       this feature is REQUIRED for clients and for servers.
   2.  The 'type' attribute of an <iq/> stanza must be present and it
       must have a value of "get", "set", "result", or "error".
       Conformance with this feature is REQUIRED for clients and for
       servers.
   3.  The response to an <iq/> stanza of type "get" or "set" must be an
       <iq/> stanza of type "result" or "error".  Conformance with this
       feature is REQUIRED for clients and for servers.
   4.  An <iq/> stanza of type "get" or "set" must contain only one
       child element.  Conformance with this feature is REQUIRED for
       clients and for servers.
   5.  An <iq/> stanza of type "result" must contain zero child elements
       or one child element.  Conformance with this feature is REQUIRED
       for clients and for servers.
   6.  An <iq/> stanza of type "error" should contain the child element
       received in the corresponding <iq/> stanza of type "get" or
       "set".  Conformance with this feature is RECOMMENDED for clients
       and for servers.

2.9.5.  Stanza Errors

   As specified in Section 9.3 of RFC 3920:

   1.  A <message/>, <presence/>, or <iq/> stanza whose type is "error"
       must contain an <error/> child element whose syntax adheres to
       the definition specified in Section 9.3.2 of RFC 3920.



Saint-Andre              Expires April 16, 2007                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft             XMPP Interop Report              October 2006


       Conformance with this feature is REQUIRED for clients and for
       servers.
   2.  An implementation must not return an error stanza in response to
       a a <message/>, <presence/>, or <iq/> stanza whose type is
       "error".  Conformance with this feature is REQUIRED for clients
       and for servers.
   3.  An implementation must support the stanza error conditions
       specified in Section 9.3.3 of RFC 3920.  Conformance with this
       feature is REQUIRED for clients and for servers.

2.9.6.  Extended Namespaces

   As specified in Section 2.4 of RFC 3921 (Section 8.4 of rfc3920bis):

   1.  An implementation must not process XML data qualified by XML
       namespaces it does not understand.  Conformance with this feature
       is REQUIRED for clients and for servers.

2.9.7.  Stanza Handling

   As specified in Section 10 of RFC 3920:

   1.  A server must properly handle an XML stanza with no 'to' address,
       as specified in Section 10.1 of RFC 3920.  Conformance with this
       feature is REQUIRED for servers (the feature does not apply to
       clients).
   2.  A server must properly handle an XML stanza with a 'to' address
       whose domain identifier does not match one of the configured
       hostnames of the server, as specified in Section 10.2 of RFC
       3920.  Conformance with this feature is REQUIRED for servers (the
       feature does not apply to clients).
   3.  A server must properly handle an XML stanza with a 'to' address
       whose domain identifier matches a subdomain of one of the
       configured hostnames of the server, as specified in Section 10.2
       of RFC 3920 and clarified in Section 10.3 of rfc3920bis.
       Conformance with this feature is REQUIRED for servers (the
       feature does not apply to clients).
   4.  A server must properly handle an XML stanza with a 'to' address
       that exactly matches one of the configured hostnames of the
       server (or such hostname appended by a resource identifier), as
       specified in Section 10.3 of RFC 3920.  Conformance with this
       feature is REQUIRED for servers (the feature does not apply to
       clients).
   5.  A server must properly handle an XML stanza with a 'to' address
       of the form <node@domain> whose domain identifier matches one of
       the configured hostnames of the server, as specified in Section
       10.2 of RFC 3920 and Section 11.1 of RFC 3921.  Conformance with
       this feature is REQUIRED for servers (the feature does not apply



Saint-Andre              Expires April 16, 2007                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft             XMPP Interop Report              October 2006


       to clients).

2.10.  Rosters

   As specified in Section 7 of RFC 3921:

   1.  An implementation must use <iq/> stanzas containing <query/>
       elements qualified by the 'jabber:iq:roster' namespace in order
       to manage contact lists (in XMPP, "rosters").  Conformance with
       this feature is REQUIRED for clients and for servers.
   2.  An implementation should retrieve its roster after sending
       initial presence.  Conformance with this feature is REQUIRED for
       clients (the feature does not apply to servers).


3.  Implementation Reports

   A future version of this document will provide one implementation
   report for each tested or reporting codebase.


4.  Security Considerations

   This document does not directly discuss security issues, since they
   are discussed in the relevant sections of RFC 3920, RFC 3921,
   rfc3920bis, and rfc3921bis.

   RFC 3921 requires client implementations to use the technology
   specified in [RFC3923] for end-to-end signing and object encryption
   of XML stanzas in the context of instant messaging and presence
   applications.  Unfortunately, there exist no implementations of the
   protocol specified in RFC 3923, as a result of which no
   implementation and deployment experience exists and no
   interoperability testing could be performed.


5.  Informative References

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

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

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




Saint-Andre              Expires April 16, 2007                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft             XMPP Interop Report              October 2006


   [rfc3920bis]
              Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
              Protocol (XMPP): Core", draft-saintandre-rfc3920bis-00
              (work in progress), October 2006.

   [RFC3921]  Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
              Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging and Presence",
              RFC 3921, October 2004.

   [rfc3921bis]
              Saint-Andre, P., "Extensible Messaging and Presence
              Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging and  Presence",
              draft-saintandre-rfc3921bis-00 (work in progress),
              April 2004.

   [RFC3923]  Saint-Andre, P., "End-to-End Signing and Object Encryption
              for the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol
              (XMPP)", RFC 3923, October 2004.


Author's Address

   Peter Saint-Andre
   Jabber Software Foundation
   P.O. Box 1641
   Denver, CO  80201
   US

   Email: stpeter@jabber.org
   URI:   xmpp:stpeter@jabber.org





















Saint-Andre              Expires April 16, 2007                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft             XMPP Interop Report              October 2006


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).





Saint-Andre              Expires April 16, 2007                [Page 15]


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