Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging and Presence
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: IETF-Announce <email@example.com> Cc: Internet Architecture Board <firstname.lastname@example.org>, RFC Editor <email@example.com>, xmpp mailing list <firstname.lastname@example.org>, xmpp chair <email@example.com> Subject: Protocol Action: 'Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging and Presence' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-xmpp-3921bis-20.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Instant Messaging and Presence' (draft-ietf-xmpp-3921bis-20.txt) as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Gonzalo Camarillo and Robert Sparks. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-xmpp-3921bis/
Technical Summary Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. This document defines extensions to core features of the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) that provide basic instant messaging (IM) and presence functionality in conformance with the requirements in RFC 2779. This document obsoletes RFC 3921. Working Group Summary Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? There is strong consensus in the working group to publish this document. There have been many implementations of RFC 3921, and that experience has been adequately captured in this document. No points of controversy remain in the working group. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type Review, on what date was the request posted? There are at least 25 server implementations, 50 library implementations, and 100 client implementations of the XMPP RFCs; a partial list is located at <http://xmpp.org/xmpp-software/> (that list does not include "software as a service" implementations hosted by service providers such as Google Talk). Several downloadable software implementations in each category have been closely tracking the changes between RFC 3921 and draft-ietf-xmpp-3921bis, and many others are currently being upgraded or are waiting until the replacement RFC is published before including the modifications in released software. Interoperability is continually being verified among implementation teams, over the XMPP network, and at more formal interoperability testing events sponsored by the XMPP Standards Foundation. It is expected that official implementation reports will be submitted within a year after publication of the revised XMPP RFCs. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the Responsible Area Director? If the document requires IANA experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries in this document are <TO BE ADDED BY THE AD>.' The document shepherd for this document is Joe Hildebrand. The responsible Area Director is Gonzalo Camarillo. IANA Expertise is not required.