From c50903036da32e2383871589b6a8999042d57160 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Sam Whited Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 12:35:51 -0500 Subject: Rename observations doc file --- docs/obeservations.md | 97 --------------------------------------------------- docs/observations.md | 97 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 97 insertions(+), 97 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 docs/obeservations.md create mode 100644 docs/observations.md diff --git a/docs/obeservations.md b/docs/obeservations.md deleted file mode 100644 index 71502424..00000000 --- a/docs/obeservations.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,97 +0,0 @@ -Observations on implementing XMPP -================================= -After spending the last two and a half month basically writing my own XMPP -library from scratch I decided to share some of the observations I made in the -process. In part this article can be seen as a response to a blog post made by -Dr. Ing. Georg Lukas. The blog post introduces a couple of XEP (XMPP Extensions) -which make the life on mobile devices a lot easier but states that they are -currently very few implementations of those XEPs. So I went ahead and -implemented all of them in my Android XMPP client. - -###General observations -The first thing I noticed is that XMPP is actually okish designed. If you were -to design a new chat protocol today you probably wouldn’t choose XML again -however the protocol basically consists of only three different packages which -are quickly hidden under some sort of abstraction layer within your library. -Getting from zero to sending messages to other users actually was very simple -and straight forward. But then came the XEPs. - -###Multi-User Chat -The first one was XEP-0045 Multi-User Chat. This is the one XEP of the XEPs I’m -going to mention in my article which is actually wildly adopted. Most clients -and servers I know of support MUC. However the level of completeness varies. -MUC actually introduces access and permission roles which are far more complex -than what some of us are used to from IRC but a lot of clients just don’t -implement them. I’m not implementing them myself (at least for now) because I -somewhat doubt that someone would actually use them (however this might be some -sort of chicken or egg problem). I did find some strange bugs though which might -be interesting for other library developers. In theory a MUC server -implementation can allow a single user (same jid) to join a conference room -multiple times with the same nick from different clients. This means if someone -wants to participate in a conference from two different devices (mobile and -desktop for example) one wouldn’t have to name oneself `userDesktop` and -`userMobile` but just `user`. Both ejabberd and prosody support this but with -strange side effects. Prosody for example doesn’t allow a user to change its -name once two clients are “merged” by having the same nick. - -###Carbons and Stream Management -Two of the other XEPs Lukas mentions — Carbons (XEP-0280) and Stream Management -(XEP-0198) — were actually fairly easy to implement. The only challenges were to -find a server to support them (I ended up running my own Prosody server) and a -desktop client to test them with. For carbons there is a patched Mcabber version -and Gajim. After implementing stream management I had very good results on my -mobile device. I had sessions running for up to 24 hours with a walking outside, -loosing mobile coverage for a few minutes and so on. The only limitation was -that I had to keep on developing and reinstalling my app. - -###Off the record -And then came OTR... This is were I spend the most time debugging stuff and -trying to get things right and compatible with other clients. This is the part -were I want to help other developers not to make the same mistakes and maybe -come to some sort of consent among XMPP developers to ultimately increase the -interoperability. OTR has some down sides which make it difficult or at times -even dangerous to implement within XMPP. First of all it is a synchronous -protocol which is tunneled through a different protocol (XMPP). Synchronous -means — among other things — auto replies. (An OTR session begins with “hi I’m -speaking otr give me your key” “ok cool here is my key”) And auto replies — we -know that since the first time an out of office auto responder went postal — are -dangerous. Things really start to get messy when you use one of the best -features of XMPP — multiple clients. The way XMPP works is that clients are -encouraged to send their messages to the raw jid and let the server decide what -full jid the messages are routed to. If in doubt even all of them. So what -happens when Alice sends a start-otr-message to Bobs raw jid? Bob receives the -message on his notebook as well as his cell phone. Both of them answer. Alice -gets two different replies. Shit explodes. Even if Alice sends the message to -bob/notebook chances are that Bob has carbon messages enabled and still receives -the messages on both devices. Now assuming that Bobs client is clever enough not -to auto reply to carbonated messages Bob/cellphone will still end up with a lot -of garbage messages. (Essentially the entire conversation between Alice and -Bob/notebook but unreadable of course) Therefor it should be good practice to -tag OTR messages as both private and no-copy (private is part of the carbons -XEP, no-copy is a general hint). I found that prosody for some reasons doesn’t -honor the private tag on outgoing messages. While this is easily fixed I presume -that having both the private and the no-copy tag will make it more compatible -with servers or clients I don’t know about yet. - -####Rules to follow when implementing OTR -To summarize my observations on implementing OTR in XMPP let me make the -following three statements. - -1. While it is good practice for unencrypted messages to be send to the raw jid -and have the receiving server or user decide how they should be routed OTR -messages must be send to a specific resource. To make this work the user should -be given the option to select the presence (which can be assisted with some -educated guessing by the client based on previous messages). Furthermore a -client should encourage a user to choose meaningful presences instead of the -clients name or even random ones. Something like `/mobile`, `/notebook`, -`/desktop` is a greater assist to any one who wants to start an otr session then -`/Gajim`, `/mcabber` or `/pidgin`. - -2. Messages should be tagged private and no-copy to avoid unnecessary traffic or -otr error loops with faulty clients. This tagging should be done even if your -own client doesn’t support carbons. - -3. When dealing with “legacy clients” — meaning clients which don’t follow my -advise — a client should be extra careful not to create message loops. This -means to not respond with otr errors if a client is not 100% sure it is the only -client which received the message diff --git a/docs/observations.md b/docs/observations.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..71502424 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/observations.md @@ -0,0 +1,97 @@ +Observations on implementing XMPP +================================= +After spending the last two and a half month basically writing my own XMPP +library from scratch I decided to share some of the observations I made in the +process. In part this article can be seen as a response to a blog post made by +Dr. Ing. Georg Lukas. The blog post introduces a couple of XEP (XMPP Extensions) +which make the life on mobile devices a lot easier but states that they are +currently very few implementations of those XEPs. So I went ahead and +implemented all of them in my Android XMPP client. + +###General observations +The first thing I noticed is that XMPP is actually okish designed. If you were +to design a new chat protocol today you probably wouldn’t choose XML again +however the protocol basically consists of only three different packages which +are quickly hidden under some sort of abstraction layer within your library. +Getting from zero to sending messages to other users actually was very simple +and straight forward. But then came the XEPs. + +###Multi-User Chat +The first one was XEP-0045 Multi-User Chat. This is the one XEP of the XEPs I’m +going to mention in my article which is actually wildly adopted. Most clients +and servers I know of support MUC. However the level of completeness varies. +MUC actually introduces access and permission roles which are far more complex +than what some of us are used to from IRC but a lot of clients just don’t +implement them. I’m not implementing them myself (at least for now) because I +somewhat doubt that someone would actually use them (however this might be some +sort of chicken or egg problem). I did find some strange bugs though which might +be interesting for other library developers. In theory a MUC server +implementation can allow a single user (same jid) to join a conference room +multiple times with the same nick from different clients. This means if someone +wants to participate in a conference from two different devices (mobile and +desktop for example) one wouldn’t have to name oneself `userDesktop` and +`userMobile` but just `user`. Both ejabberd and prosody support this but with +strange side effects. Prosody for example doesn’t allow a user to change its +name once two clients are “merged” by having the same nick. + +###Carbons and Stream Management +Two of the other XEPs Lukas mentions — Carbons (XEP-0280) and Stream Management +(XEP-0198) — were actually fairly easy to implement. The only challenges were to +find a server to support them (I ended up running my own Prosody server) and a +desktop client to test them with. For carbons there is a patched Mcabber version +and Gajim. After implementing stream management I had very good results on my +mobile device. I had sessions running for up to 24 hours with a walking outside, +loosing mobile coverage for a few minutes and so on. The only limitation was +that I had to keep on developing and reinstalling my app. + +###Off the record +And then came OTR... This is were I spend the most time debugging stuff and +trying to get things right and compatible with other clients. This is the part +were I want to help other developers not to make the same mistakes and maybe +come to some sort of consent among XMPP developers to ultimately increase the +interoperability. OTR has some down sides which make it difficult or at times +even dangerous to implement within XMPP. First of all it is a synchronous +protocol which is tunneled through a different protocol (XMPP). Synchronous +means — among other things — auto replies. (An OTR session begins with “hi I’m +speaking otr give me your key” “ok cool here is my key”) And auto replies — we +know that since the first time an out of office auto responder went postal — are +dangerous. Things really start to get messy when you use one of the best +features of XMPP — multiple clients. The way XMPP works is that clients are +encouraged to send their messages to the raw jid and let the server decide what +full jid the messages are routed to. If in doubt even all of them. So what +happens when Alice sends a start-otr-message to Bobs raw jid? Bob receives the +message on his notebook as well as his cell phone. Both of them answer. Alice +gets two different replies. Shit explodes. Even if Alice sends the message to +bob/notebook chances are that Bob has carbon messages enabled and still receives +the messages on both devices. Now assuming that Bobs client is clever enough not +to auto reply to carbonated messages Bob/cellphone will still end up with a lot +of garbage messages. (Essentially the entire conversation between Alice and +Bob/notebook but unreadable of course) Therefor it should be good practice to +tag OTR messages as both private and no-copy (private is part of the carbons +XEP, no-copy is a general hint). I found that prosody for some reasons doesn’t +honor the private tag on outgoing messages. While this is easily fixed I presume +that having both the private and the no-copy tag will make it more compatible +with servers or clients I don’t know about yet. + +####Rules to follow when implementing OTR +To summarize my observations on implementing OTR in XMPP let me make the +following three statements. + +1. While it is good practice for unencrypted messages to be send to the raw jid +and have the receiving server or user decide how they should be routed OTR +messages must be send to a specific resource. To make this work the user should +be given the option to select the presence (which can be assisted with some +educated guessing by the client based on previous messages). Furthermore a +client should encourage a user to choose meaningful presences instead of the +clients name or even random ones. Something like `/mobile`, `/notebook`, +`/desktop` is a greater assist to any one who wants to start an otr session then +`/Gajim`, `/mcabber` or `/pidgin`. + +2. Messages should be tagged private and no-copy to avoid unnecessary traffic or +otr error loops with faulty clients. This tagging should be done even if your +own client doesn’t support carbons. + +3. When dealing with “legacy clients” — meaning clients which don’t follow my +advise — a client should be extra careful not to create message loops. This +means to not respond with otr errors if a client is not 100% sure it is the only +client which received the message -- cgit v1.2.3