|WikiProject Computing / Networking||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
- 1 JINGLE
- 2 Shisha
- 3 Changes to example section
- 4 Implementations section
- 5 XMPP or Jabber?
- 6 projects that use xmpp
- 7 Port (5222)
- 8 Intelligence Community embracing XMPP
- 9 References are dead
- 10 Google Wave
- 11 Weaknesses:Scalability needs rewording
- 12 Pros:Decentralization ?
- 13 Connecting to Other Protocols
- 14 Reference to XMPP.net
- 15 Message delivery scenario
- 16 peer review please
- 17 Beginning of article incorrect
- 18 RFCs of XMPP are updated
- 19 Initial summary needed
- 20 Lightbulb logo?
- 21 skype
- 22 Requested move
- 23 Silent Circle Instant Message Protocol
- 24 Please discuss changes to the indefinite article
- 25 XMPP as an extensible Message Oriented Middleware (xMOM) platform
- 26 native XMPP (needs to be clarified)
- 27 Support for end-to-end encryption
I'm going to delete the reference to Opetec's Shisha product. It's not open source as stated and the link provided is "404 Not found," anyway. Searching independently produced a link at the Opetec web site saying that the product is still unreleased, scheduled for release in 3Q 2005, and states that even the basic functionality of the product is secret:
Developer Opetec, Publisher: TBA
Due for release: Q3 2005
Platform(s): Linux, Windows, MacOS, Solaris, Symbian OS Description:
Unfortunatly we are unwilling to reveal the true features at this stage, but we will say, without any marketing speak that it is the next revolution in communication and interoperability. For the developers we will be releasing a fully open toolkit to allow developers to use the features of Shisha on any existing platform. If you are interested in investing in Shisha or developing the project further, then feel free to contact Opetec - we will communicate more information with investors who appear to be serious and who are interested in investing in the technology sector.
There's not even a basis for saying that Shisha, whatever it is, has anything to do with XMPP.
Zigamorph 15:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Changes to example section
I changed the example section a little bit in an attempt to make it easier to follow. The previous names (kuusipuu and tero) and the test server (amessage.de) were very different and made the confusing example a little more confusing. I picked more common and generic-sounding names, alice, bob, and example.org. --Foofy 18:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
The example section has now been deleted, with the reason that it was 'not very useful'. Personally, I was quite curious as to the format of the XML streams, so I ended up going and looking at the example in the article history. Thus, it was useful to me. However, I'm not sure whether said chunk of XML belongs in the article or not, in that I don't know whether anyone else would find it useful - opinions? 184.108.40.206 23:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Isn't it better to replace that section with the category XMPP? NaturalBornKiller 18:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- The section that should be removed IMO is now called "Uptake and clients".--NaturalBornKiller 10:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, a section documenting larger projects which adopted the protocol would be very warranted, although it should be more prose and less of a list. I certainly agree that we don't need another list of Jabber clients. We already have List of XMPP client software which is in serious need of improvement. -- intgr #%@! 11:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
XMPP or Jabber?
It seem to me that XMPP and Jabber are exactly the same thing, but Jabber seems to be a more common name. So shouldn't the article be talking about Jabber instead of XMPP which is a technical name? Wikipedia:Naming convention would seem to indicate that the name Jabber should be used. Or can someone come up with a reason why XMPP should be used instead? Pafcu 09:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Jabber ist just an imlementation of the XMPP. Comparable to the relation between IRC and its protocol.
- That's not true. A company with the misleading name "Jabber, Inc." that offered a commercial XMPP client was purchased by Cisco. AFAIK it is not related to the original Jabber or to jabber.org. The "Jabber" trademark is owned by "Jabber, Inc." but administered by the XMPP Standards Foundation. --220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
projects that use xmpp
i don't know if it's important, but i think that google's android is using this to send "intents" between devices and the olpc uses this as well (i just passed by, please delete my comment if it's not important enough to be included in the article) --18.104.22.168 07:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Intelligence Community embracing XMPP
References are dead
Weaknesses:Scalability needs rewording
In the section Weaknesses:Scalability, the second and third sentences need a rewrite. In the second sentence, what does the phrase "These two" refer to? These two sentences seem to be talking more about muli-user chat and publish/subscribe services, rather than XMPP. Maybe these two sentences shouldn't be there at all? Perhaps there should be a discussion of the scalability problem as it relates specifically to XMPP. Is there work being done on XMPP to improve scalability? -- Dougher (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Presence data overhead
- "and close to 60% of it being redundantly" This is highly subjective, not typical, and should be removed. As presence is a huge overhead, this "60%" redundancy only occurs in certain conditions between 2 servers with an extremely large number of cross-server user subscriptions. This could easily be reproduced at 10%, 20% or even 220% presence packet redundancy. Something more along "possibility with many redundant packets" would be better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 12:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, decentralization is a pro, i won't argue about it. But also is a weakness. Let's say, if MS put their (wrasp) in XMPP, then soon we will find a MS-XMPP protocol, adding some superset of function and removing some "useless or non used capabilities". Since it is decentralized then everybody can change (or to keep a old version), then sooner or later this will become a nightmare. --126.96.36.199 (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)--188.8.131.52 (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- That has nothing to do with decentralization, or if anything, the effect would be the opposite. What you are talking about is the fact that somebody can implement a protocol that's not XMPP. Whether it's somehow based on XMPP, or some centrally organized protocol, or a design from scratch, doesn't really make any difference here - as long as inventing protocols for instant messaging is not illegal, you won't be able to stop that from happening. Actually, probably the only way you possibly could stop it is by having a protocol with decentrally administrated infrastructure (like XMPP) widely deployed. As no single party can change that infrastructure, they'll have to stay compatible with it if they want to participate in the market. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 06:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Connecting to Other Protocols
I see here "This may violate terms of service on the protocol used; however, such terms of service are not legally enforceable in several countries." Is there a reference for this?
Reference to XMPP.net
This web site is no longer around. As of October 2009 they no longer provide SSL certificates. They now link to StartSSL and ask that you get your free certificate directly from them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zellfaze (talk • contribs) 22:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
--fixed, let me know if i missed anything. Keastes 20:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keastes (talk • contribs)
Message delivery scenario
In the alternate scenarios of Step 2, it is unclear whether Montague.net or Capulet.com seeks to see if Romeo is connected. I feel confident that Montague.net checks to see if he's online and, if not, stores it, so I have modified the scenario to follow that. Someone, please confirm that and, if I am wrong, change it. Dabizi (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
peer review please
i edited this article several days ago to reflect a change in the certificate issuer, on 22 may 2010 the article was edited and the reference was removed, the reference given in the change was http://blog.xmpp.org/index.php/2009/09/ca-updates/ as a blog its is a gray area under WP:V as well as valid information was added, how ever the link to the issuer was removed which i feel was valid information, i want to see if i can get a third head in her to make sure this meets WP:links and is not considered an edit war. the section in question is the security sub-section of strengths
i will merge the
two three versions, again i would like some one to check it mostly for WP:EL#what_to_link, thank you edit:correction to my abysmal spelling and remove resign by sinebot Keastes 06:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Beginning of article incorrect
Someone might want to fix this. The beginning of the article starts with the history of XMPP but incorrectly asserts what it was originally developed for. If the beginning of the article starts with the history, then to be correct it should say that XMPP was developed for chat (rather than today's extended uses listed there). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpbear (talk • contribs) 13:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
RFCs of XMPP are updated
Initial summary needed
I came into the article to get a quick read on what Jabber is. What I found was a mass of buzzwords, links, and stuff that should have been footnotes hitting me right in the face, right up top. And note I'm a geek -- just not that flavor of geek. So I'm off to find another site to tell me what Jabber is, because I don't have the patience or interest to wade through this.
Suggestion: put a summary of what it is, what it does, and preferably a screenshot of one popular implementation right up top. Then you can get into the arcane stuff and buzzword orgasms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Isn't the lightbulb the more widespread logo for XMPP/Jabber? Many clients use it and so does the figure in the "Connecting to other protocols" section. I've never seen the XMPP foundation logo anywhere.--18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
This article currently says "Skype also provides limited XMPP support." . Given the context I would interpret this as meaning that it is possible to use an XMPP client to connect with skype contacts. However following up the reference it seems to only mention XMPP support in the skype CLIENT (to connect to facebook IM), not in the skype service. Plugwash (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Silent Circle Instant Message Protocol
Silent Circle create a secure version of XMPP: Silent Circle Instant Message Protocol, i don't know if this article must talk about it... https://silentcircle.com/web/scimp-protocol/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2E52:79B0:C4B:A394:351D:25C8 (talk) 13:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Haven't read their whitepaper yet but I'd be inclined to say it's probably not worth mentioning here. XMPP is designed to be extensible and we haven't mentioned any other extensions either. The protocol whitepaper also seems to be only dated two months ago and I can't find any secondary sources that talk about it with a quick Google search. Might be better to leave it out for those reasons. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 04:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Please discuss changes to the indefinite article
I've reverted a change to the article which is one of many similar by IPs in the range 109.77.xx.xx, made recently to articles in this general subject area, most of them already reverted by others.
Please discuss such changes. If you do not wish to create an account, here is as good a place as any to start.
See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User: 109.77.xx.xx and the indefinite article. Andrewa (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
It's been pointed out at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (ANI to its friends) that the IP addresses I quoted are from the 4096 rotating Vodaphone addresses at 22.214.171.124/20, but other IPs are also involved, and that the affected articles all or almost all use Template:IPstack. Andrewa (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
The ANI discussion is now archived here (so please do not edit it there).
Salient points are that an edit notice has been added to XMPP and to Resource Reservation Protocol using Template:Indefinite article, and will be added to other pages as they are hit. It needs admin privileges to do this, see Wikipedia:Editnotice. Andrewa (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- @Andrewa: Why is "an XMPP" wrong? Certainly this seems to be required by the rule explained at A_and_an#Indefinite_article, which is what I always go by. Are there any dialects that don't pronounce the first letter like "ex"? -- Beland (talk) 16:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
XMPP as an extensible Message Oriented Middleware (xMOM) platform
This entire section seems like complete BS to me: All it says is XMPP could be used, might prove useful, may prove ideal, etc. So, it's neither backed by anyone actually using it for that purpose or at least a proof of concept implementation somewhere. The section claims that "XMPP is a perfect protocol for Cloud Computing" - there is nothing to back that claim. In my mind (I'm a researcher in the area of distributed systems, cloud computing and related areas), this is just plain wrong and I can't see any reason why anyone should think so. I would suggest removing this entire section (and I wasn't the one who put the neutrality marker in there). 126.96.36.199 (talk) 13:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
native XMPP (needs to be clarified)
"Similarly, in December 2011, Microsoft released an XMPP interface to its (now-defunct) Microsoft Messenger service. Skype, its de facto successor, also provides limited XMPP support. However, these are not native XMPP implementations."
XMPP is a protocol. It was unclear to me what "native implementations" mean or why it should matter. It shouldn't matter only that a protocol is implemented (completly)? I can understand "limited" there but limitted how? I searched for "native":
"The original and "native" transport protocol for XMPP is Transmission Control Protocol (TCP), using open-ended XML streams over long-lived TCP connections." This I think is a different context and not helping with the above, that I also assume uses TCP.. Can XMPP use something else?
What I guess is meant is that others use another protocol (their own) and can also implement XMPP. Does "not native" mean use a gateway?: "Another type of gateway is a server-to-server gateway, which enables a non-XMPP server deployment to connect to native XMPP servers using the built in interdomain federation features of XMPP. Such server-to-server gateways are offered by several enterprise IM software products, including:
FYI: Microsoft Lync Server: "Lync Server has an XMPP gateway server to federate with external XMPP servers. With Lync Server 2013, XMPP is natively part of the product." comp.arch (talk) 09:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Support for end-to-end encryption
Edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=XMPP&oldid=650104362 added "missing end-to-end (e2) encryption" to the weaknesses list. I reverted that edit in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=XMPP&oldid=659660391 which was again reverted in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=XMPP&oldid=660500157 by the user who originally added that point. It was claimed in the revert that "Those were proposed, never implemented, now dead.". But this is not true: At least Conversations (Android XMPP Client) and Gajim (Multiplaform Python XMPP Client) support various means of XMPP e2e encryption, including XEP-27. I believe that many further implementations of XMPP e2e encryption exists.
And even if there was no single implementation of a e2e XMPP specification available, which I just refuted, then the claim "XMPP does not support e2e" does still not hold, because the protocol does indeed support e2e. You have to distinguish between the features of the protocol XMPP and the various XMPP implementations. This Wikipedia page is about the protocol XMPP. --Flowzn (talk) 07:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Flowzn: I'm in a bit of a rush at the moment, but a few points:
- XEP-0027 is for OpenPGP. Almost no one uses it with XMPP, and it's a very defined and separate protocol.
- I actually did a bunch of research for the proposed native XMPP e2e protocol because I was considering applying for a paid internship to write a replacement. I'm almost sure that it expired and was never accepted. If it was accepted, it was never implemented. Remember that XEP stands for XMPP Extension Proposal - proposal implies the option for acceptance or rejection.
- Remember the distinction between encryption protocol and transport protocol. For example, you can implement OpenPGP or OTR encryption to work over telegraph or carrier pigeon - they're text-based and transport-independent. XMPP has no realistic implemented (or, I think, unimplemented) standardized way for clients to do e2e encryption. Anecdotally, for a protocol that complex, it definitely should. XMPP doesn't have e2e encryption any more than carrier pigeons do.
- Exercisephys (talk) 04:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)