Network Working Group                                     P. Saint-Andre
Request for Comments: 4622                                           JSF
Category: Standards Track                                      July 2006


            Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs)
             and Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) for
        the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP)

Status of This Memo

  This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the
  Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for
  improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet
  Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state
  and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

  Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Abstract

  This document defines the use of Internationalized Resource
  Identifiers (IRIs) and Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) in
  identifying or interacting with entities that can communicate via the
  Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP).
























Saint-Andre                 Standards Track                     [Page 1]

RFC 4622                     XMPP IRIs/URIs                    July 2006


Table of Contents

  1. Introduction ....................................................3
     1.1. Terminology ................................................3
  2. Use of XMPP IRIs and URIs .......................................4
     2.1. Rationale ..................................................4
     2.2. Form .......................................................4
     2.3. Authority Component ........................................6
     2.4. Path Component .............................................7
     2.5. Query Component ............................................7
     2.6. Fragment Identifier Component ..............................9
     2.7. Generation of XMPP IRIs/URIs ...............................9
          2.7.1. Generation Method ...................................9
          2.7.2. Generation Notes ...................................10
          2.7.3. Generation Example .................................11
     2.8. Processing of XMPP IRIs/URIs ..............................12
          2.8.1. Processing Method ..................................12
          2.8.2. Processing Notes ...................................13
          2.8.3. Processing Example .................................14
     2.9. Internationalization ......................................14
  3. IANA Registration of xmpp URI Scheme ...........................15
     3.1. URI Scheme Name ...........................................15
     3.2. Status ....................................................15
     3.3. URI Scheme Syntax .........................................15
     3.4. URI Scheme Semantics ......................................16
     3.5. Encoding Considerations ...................................16
     3.6. Applications/protocols That Use This URI Scheme Name ......16
     3.7. Interoperability Considerations ...........................16
     3.8. Security Considerations ...................................16
     3.9. Contact ...................................................17
     3.10. Author/Change Controller .................................17
     3.11. References ...............................................17
  4. IANA Considerations ............................................17
  5. Security Considerations ........................................17
     5.1. Reliability and Consistency ...............................17
     5.2. Malicious Construction ....................................18
     5.3. Back-End Transcoding ......................................18
     5.4. Sensitive Information .....................................18
     5.5. Semantic Attacks ..........................................19
     5.6. Spoofing ..................................................19
  6. References .....................................................20
     6.1. Normative References ......................................20
     6.2. Informative References ....................................20








Saint-Andre                 Standards Track                     [Page 2]

RFC 4622                     XMPP IRIs/URIs                    July 2006


1.  Introduction

  The Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) is a streaming
  XML technology that enables any two entities on a network to exchange
  well-defined but extensible XML elements (called "XML stanzas") at a
  rate close to real time.

  As specified in [XMPP-CORE], entity addresses as used in
  communications over an XMPP network must not be prepended with a
  Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) scheme (as specified in [URI]).
  However, applications external to an XMPP network may need to
  identify XMPP entities either as URIs or, in a more modern fashion,
  as Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs; see [IRI]).
  Examples of such external applications include databases that need to
  store XMPP addresses and non-native user agents such as web browsers
  and calendaring applications that provide interfaces to XMPP
  services.

  The format for an XMPP address is defined in [XMPP-CORE].  Such an
  address may contain nearly any [UNICODE] character and must adhere to
  various profiles of [STRINGPREP].  The result is that an XMPP address
  is fully internationalizable and is very close to being an IRI
  without a scheme.  However, given that there is no freestanding
  registry of IRI schemes, it is necessary to define XMPP identifiers
  primarily as URIs rather than as IRIs, and to register an XMPP URI
  scheme instead of an IRI scheme.  Therefore, this document does the
  following:

  o  Specifies how to identify XMPP entities as IRIs or URIs.

  o  Specifies how to interact with XMPP entities as IRIs or URIs.

  o  Formally defines the syntax for XMPP IRIs and URIs.

  o  Specifies how to transform XMPP IRIs into URIs and vice-versa.

  o  Registers the xmpp URI scheme.

1.1.  Terminology

  This document inherits terminology from [IRI], [URI], and
  [XMPP-CORE].

  The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
  "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
  document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [TERMS].





Saint-Andre                 Standards Track                     [Page 3]

RFC 4622                     XMPP IRIs/URIs                    July 2006


2.  Use of XMPP IRIs and URIs

2.1.  Rationale

  As described in [XMPP-IM], instant messaging and presence
  applications of XMPP must handle im: and pres: URIs (as specified by
  [CPIM] and [CPP]).  However, there are many other applications of
  XMPP (including network management, workflow systems, generic
  publish-subscribe, remote procedure calls, content syndication,
  gaming, and middleware), and these applications do not implement
  instant messaging and presence semantics.  Neither does a generic
  XMPP entity implement the semantics of any existing URI scheme, such
  as the http:, ftp:, or mailto: scheme.  Therefore, it is appropriate
  to define a new URI scheme that makes it possible to identify or
  interact with any XMPP entity (not just instant messaging and
  presence entities) as an IRI or URI.

  XMPP IRIs and URIs are defined for use by non-native interfaces and
  applications, and primarily for the purpose of identification rather
  than of interaction (on the latter distinction, see Section 1.2.2 of
  [URI]).  In order to ensure interoperability on XMPP networks, when
  data is routed to an XMPP entity (e.g., when an XMPP address is
  contained in the 'to' or 'from' attribute of an XML stanza) or an
  XMPP entity is otherwise identified in standard XMPP protocol
  elements, the entity MUST be addressed as <[node@]domain[/resource]>
  (i.e., without a prepended scheme), where the "node identifier",
  "domain identifier", and "resource identifier" portions of an XMPP
  address conform to the definitions provided in Section 3 of
  [XMPP-CORE].

  (Note: For historical reasons, the term "resource identifier" is used
  in XMPP to refer to the optional portion of an XMPP address that
  follows the domain identifier and the "/" separator character (for
  details, refer to Section 3.4 of [XMPP-CORE]; this use of the term
  "resource identifier" is not to be confused with the meanings of
  "resource" and "identifier" provided in Section 1.1 of [URI]).

2.2.  Form

  As described in [XMPP-CORE], an XMPP address used natively on an XMPP
  network is a string of Unicode characters that (1) conforms to a
  certain set of [STRINGPREP] profiles and [IDNA] restrictions, (2)
  follows a certain set of syntax rules, and (3) is encoded as [UTF-8].
  The form of such an address can be represented using Augmented
  Backus-Naur Form ([ABNF]) as:

     [ node "@" ] domain [ "/" resource ]




Saint-Andre                 Standards Track                     [Page 4]

RFC 4622                     XMPP IRIs/URIs                    July 2006


  In this context, the "node" and "resource" rules rely on distinct
  profiles of [STRINGPREP], and the "domain" rule relies on the concept
  of an internationalized domain name as described in [IDNA].  (Note:
  There is no need to refer to punycode in the IRI syntax itself, since
  any punycode representation would occur only inside an XMPP
  application in order to represent internationalized domain names.
  However, it is the responsibility of the processing application to
  convert [IRI] syntax into [IDNA] syntax before addressing XML stanzas
  to the specified entity on an XMPP network.)

  Naturally, in order to be converted into an IRI or URI, an XMPP
  address must be prepended with a scheme (specifically, the xmpp
  scheme) and may also need to undergo transformations that adhere to
  the rules defined in [IRI] and [URI].  Furthermore, in order to
  enable more advanced interaction with an XMPP entity rather than
  simple identification, it is desirable to take advantage of
  additional aspects of URI syntax and semantics, such as authority
  components, query components, and fragment identifier components.

  Therefore, the ABNF syntax for an XMPP IRI is defined as shown below
  using Augmented Backus-Naur Form specified by [ABNF], where the
  "ifragment", "ihost", and "iunreserved" rules are defined in [IRI],
  the "pct-encoded" rule is defined in [URI], and DQUOTE is defined in
  [ABNF]:

    xmppiri    = "xmpp" ":" ihierxmpp
                 [ "?" iquerycomp ]
                 [ "#" ifragment ]
    ihierxmpp  = iauthpath / ipathxmpp
    iauthpath  = "//" iauthxmpp [ "/" ipathxmpp ]
    iauthxmpp  = inodeid "@" ihost
    ipathxmpp  = [ inodeid "@" ] ihost [ "/" iresid ]
    inodeid    = *( iunreserved / pct-encoded / nodeallow )
    nodeallow  = "!" / "$" / "(" / ")" / "*" / "+" / "," / ";" /
                 "=" / "[" / "\" / "]" / "^" / "`" / "{" / "|" /
                 "}"
    iresid     = *( iunreserved / pct-encoded / resallow )
    resallow   = "!" / DQUOTE / "$" / "&" / "'" / "(" / ")" /
                 "*" / "+" / "," / ":" / ";" / "<" / "=" / ">" /
                 "[" / "\" / "]" / "^" / "`" / "{" / "|" / "}"
    iquerycomp = iquerytype [ *ipair ]
    iquerytype = *iunreserved
    ipair      = ";" ikey "=" ivalue
    ikey       = *iunreserved
    ivalue     = *( iunreserved / pct-encoded )






Saint-Andre                 Standards Track                     [Page 5]

RFC 4622                     XMPP IRIs/URIs                    July 2006


  However, the foregoing syntax is not appropriate for inclusion in the
  registration of the xmpp URI scheme, since the IANA recognizes only
  URI schemes and not IRI schemes.  Therefore, the ABNF syntax for an
  XMPP URI rather than for IRI is defined as shown in Section 3.3 of
  this document (see below under "IANA Registration").  If it is
  necessary to convert the IRI syntax into URI syntax, an application
  MUST adhere to the mapping procedure specified in Section 3.1 of
  [IRI].

  The following is an example of a basic XMPP IRI/URI used for purposes
  of identifying a node associated with an XMPP server:

     xmpp:[email protected]

  Descriptions of the various components of an XMPP IRI/URI are
  provided in the following sections.

2.3.  Authority Component

  As explained in Section 2.8 of this document, in the absence of an
  authority component, the processing application would authenticate as
  a configured user at a configured XMPP server.  That is, the
  authority component section is unnecessary and should be ignored if
  the processing application has been configured with a set of default
  credentials.

  In accordance with Section 3.2 of RFC 3986, the authority component
  is preceded by a double slash ("//") and is terminated by the next
  slash ("/"), question mark ("?"), or number sign ("#") character, or
  by the end of the IRI/URI.  As explained more fully in Section 2.8.1
  of this document, the presence of an authority component signals the
  processing application to authenticate as the node@domain specified
  in the authority component rather than as a configured node@domain
  (see the Security Considerations section of this document regarding
  authentication).  (While it is unlikely that the authority component
  will be included in most XMPP IRIs or URIs, the scheme allows for its
  inclusion, if appropriate.)  Thus, the following XMPP IRI/URI
  indicates to authenticate as "[email protected]":

     xmpp://[email protected]

  Note well that this is quite different from the following XMPP
  IRI/URI, which identifies a node "[email protected]" but does not
  signal the processing application to authenticate as that node:

     xmpp:[email protected]





Saint-Andre                 Standards Track                     [Page 6]

RFC 4622                     XMPP IRIs/URIs                    July 2006


  Similarly, using a possible query component of "?message" to trigger
  an interface for sending a message, the following XMPP IRI/URI
  signals the processing application to authenticate as
  "[email protected]" and to send a message to "[email protected]":

     xmpp://[email protected]/[email protected]?message

  By contrast, the following XMPP IRI/URI signals the processing
  application to authenticate as its configured default account and to
  send a message to "[email protected]":

     xmpp:[email protected]?message

2.4.  Path Component

  The path component of an XMPP IRI/URI identifies an XMPP address or
  specifies the XMPP address to which an XML stanza shall be directed
  at the end of IRI/URI processing.

  For example, the following XMPP IRI/URI identifies a node associated
  with an XMPP server:

     xmpp:[email protected]

  The following XMPP IRI/URI identifies a node associated with an XMPP
  server along with a particular XMPP resource identifier associated
  with that node:

     xmpp:[email protected]/some-resource

  Inclusion of a node is optional in XMPP addresses, so the following
  XMPP IRI/URI simply identifies an XMPP server:

     xmpp:example.com

2.5.  Query Component

  There are many potential use cases for encapsulating information in
  the query component of an XMPP IRI/URI; examples include but are not
  limited to:

  o  sending an XMPP message stanza (see [XMPP-IM]),

  o  adding a roster item (see [XMPP-IM]),

  o  sending a presence subscription (see [XMPP-IM]),

  o  probing for current presence information (see [XMPP-IM]),



Saint-Andre                 Standards Track                     [Page 7]

RFC 4622                     XMPP IRIs/URIs                    July 2006


  o  triggering a remote procedure call (see [JEP-0009]),

  o  discovering the identity or capabilities of another entity (see
     [JEP-0030]),

  o  joining an XMPP-based text chat room (see [JEP-0045]),

  o  interacting with publish-subscribe channels (see [JEP-0060]),

  o  providing a SOAP interface (see [JEP-0072]), and

  o  registering with another entity (see [JEP-0077]).

  Many of these potential use cases are application specific, and the
  full range of such applications cannot be foreseen in advance given
  the continued expansion in XMPP development; however, there is
  agreement within the Jabber/XMPP developer community that all the
  uses envisioned to date can be encapsulated via a "query type",
  optionally supplemented by one or more "key-value" pairs (this is
  similar to the "application/x-www-form-urlencoded" MIME type
  described in [HTML]).

  As an example, an XMPP IRI/URI intended to launch an interface for
  sending a message to the XMPP entity "[email protected]" might
  be represented as follows:

     xmpp:[email protected]?message

  Similarly, an XMPP IRI/URI intended to launch an interface for
  sending a message to the XMPP entity "[email protected]" with
  a particular subject might be represented as follows:

     xmpp:[email protected]?message;subject=Hello%20World

  If the processing application does not understand query components or
  the specified query type, it MUST ignore the query component and
  treat the IRI/URI as consisting of, for example,
  <xmpp:[email protected]> rather than
  <xmpp:[email protected]?query>.  If the processing application
  does not understand a particular key within the query component, it
  MUST ignore that key and its associated value.

  As noted, there exist many kinds of XMPP applications (both actual
  and potential), and such applications may define query types and keys
  for use in the query component portion of XMPP URIs.  The Jabber
  Registrar function (see [JEP-0053]) of the Jabber Software Foundation
  maintains a registry of such query types and keys at
  <http://www.jabber.org/registrar/querytypes.html>.  To help ensure



Saint-Andre                 Standards Track                     [Page 8]

RFC 4622                     XMPP IRIs/URIs                    July 2006


  interoperability, any application using the formats defined in this
  document SHOULD submit any associated query types and keys to that
  registry in accordance with the procedures specified in [JEP-0147].

2.6.  Fragment Identifier Component

  As stated in Section 3.5 of [URI], "The fragment identifier component
  of a URI allows indirect identification of a secondary resource by
  reference to a primary resource and additional identifying
  information."  Because the resource identified by an XMPP IRI/URI
  does not make available any media type (see [MIME]) and therefore (in
  the terminology of [URI]) no representation exists at an XMPP
  resource, the semantics of the fragment identifier component in XMPP
  IRIs/URIs are to be "considered unknown and, effectively,
  unconstrained" (ibid.).  Particular XMPP applications MAY make use of
  the fragment identifier component for their own purposes.  However,
  if a processing application does not understand fragment identifier
  components or the syntax of a particular fragment identifier
  component included in an XMPP IRI/URI, it MUST ignore the fragment
  identifier component.

2.7.  Generation of XMPP IRIs/URIs

2.7.1.  Generation Method

  In order to form an XMPP IRI from an XMPP node identifier, domain
  identifier, and resource identifier, the generating application MUST
  first ensure that the XMPP address conforms to the rules specified in
  [XMPP-CORE], including application of the relevant [STRINGPREP]; it
  MUST then concatenate the following:

  1.  The "xmpp" scheme and the ":" character

  2.  Optionally (if an authority component is to be included before
      the node identifier), the characters "//", an authority component
      of the form node@domain, and the character "/".

  3.  Optionally (if the XMPP address contained an XMPP "node
      identifier"), a string of Unicode characters that conforms to the
      "inodeid" rule, followed by the "@" character.

  4.  A string of Unicode characters that conforms to the "ihost" rule.

  5.  Optionally (if the XMPP address contained an XMPP "resource
      identifier"), the character "/" and a string of Unicode
      characters that conforms to the "iresid" rule.





Saint-Andre                 Standards Track                     [Page 9]

RFC 4622                     XMPP IRIs/URIs                    July 2006


  6.  Optionally (if a query component is to be included), the "?"
      character and query component.

  7.  Optionally (if a fragment identifier component is to be
      included), the "#" character and fragment identifier component.

  In order to form an XMPP URI from the resulting IRI, an application
  MUST adhere to the mapping procedure specified in Section 3.1 of
  [IRI].

2.7.2.  Generation Notes

  Certain characters are allowed in the node identifier, domain
  identifier, and resource identifier portions of a native XMPP address
  but prohibited by the "inodeid", "ihost", and "iresid" rules of an
  XMPP IRI.  Specifically, the "#" and "?" characters are allowed in
  node identifiers, and the "/", "?", "#", and "@" characters are
  allowed in resource identifiers, but these characters are used as
  delimiters in XMPP IRIs.  In addition, the " " ([US-ASCII] space)
  character is allowed in resource identifiers but prohibited in IRIs.
  Therefore, all the foregoing characters MUST be percent-encoded when
  transforming an XMPP address into an XMPP IRI.

  Consider the following nasty node in an XMPP address:

     nasty!#$%()*+,-.;=?[\]^_`{|}[email protected]

  That address would be transformed into the following XMPP IRI:

     xmpp:nasty!%23$%25()*+,-.;=%3F[\]^_`{|}[email protected]

  Consider the following repulsive resource in an XMPP address (split
  into two lines for layout purposes):

     [email protected]
     /repulsive !#"$%&'()*+,-./:;<=>?@[\]^_`{|}~resource

  That address would be transformed into the following XMPP IRI (split
  into two lines for layout purposes):

     xmpp:[email protected]
     /repulsive%20!%23"$%25&'()*+,-.%2F:;<=>%3F%40[\]^_`{|}~resource

  Furthermore, virtually any character outside the [US-ASCII] range is
  allowed in an XMPP address and therefore also in an XMPP IRI, but URI
  syntax forbids such characters directly and specifies that such
  characters MUST be percent-encoded.  In order to determine the URI
  associated



Saint-Andre                 Standards Track                    [Page 10]

RFC 4622                     XMPP IRIs/URIs                    July 2006


  with an XMPP IRI, an application MUST adhere to the mapping procedure
  specified in Section 3.1 of [IRI].

2.7.3.  Generation Example

  Consider the following XMPP address:

        <ji&#x159;i@&#x10D;echy.example/v Praze>

  Note: The string "&#x159;" stands for the Unicode character LATIN
  SMALL LETTER R WITH CARON, and the string "&#x10D;" stands for the
  Unicode character LATIN SMALL LETTER C WITH CARON, following the "XML
  Notation" used in [IRI] to represent characters that cannot be
  rendered in ASCII-only documents (note also that these characters are
  represented in their stringprep canonical form).  The '<' and '>'
  characters are not part of the address itself but are provided to set
  off the address for legibility.  For those who do not read Czech,
  this example could be Anglicized as "[email protected]/In
  Prague".

  In accordance with the process specified above, the generating
  application would do the following to generate a valid XMPP IRI from
  this address:

  1.  Ensure that the XMPP address conforms to the rules specified in
      [XMPP-CORE], including application of the relevant [STRINGPREP]
      profiles and encoding as a [UTF-8] string.

  2.  Concatenate the following:

      1.  The "xmpp" scheme and the ":" character.

      2.  An "authority component" if included (not shown in this
          example).

      3.  A string of Unicode characters that represents the XMPP
          address, transformed in accordance with the "inodeid",
          "ihost", and "iresid" rules.

      4.  The "?" character followed by a "query component", if
          appropriate to the application (not shown in this example).

      5.  The "#" character followed by a "fragment identifier
          component", if appropriate to the application (not shown in
          this example).






Saint-Andre                 Standards Track                    [Page 11]

RFC 4622                     XMPP IRIs/URIs                    July 2006


  The result is this XMPP IRI:

      <xmpp:ji&#x159;i@&#x10D;echy.example/v%20Praze>

  In order to generate a valid XMPP URI from the foregoing IRI, the
  application MUST adhere to the procedure specified in Section 3.1 of
  [IRI], resulting in the following URI:

      <xmpp:ji%C5%99i@%C4%8Dechy.example/v%20Praze>

2.8.  Processing of XMPP IRIs/URIs

2.8.1.  Processing Method

  If a processing application is presented with an XMPP URI and not
  with an XMPP IRI, it MUST first convert the URI into an IRI by
  following the procedure specified in Section 3.2 of [IRI].

  In order to decompose an XMPP IRI for interaction with the entity it
  identifies, a processing application MUST separate:

  1.  The "xmpp" scheme and the ":" character.

  2.  The authority component, if included (the string of Unicode
      characters between the "//" characters and the next "/"
      character, the "?" character, the "#" character, or the end of
      the IRI).

  3.  A string of Unicode characters that represents an XMPP address as
      transformed in accordance with the "inodeid", "ihost", and
      "iresid" rules.

  4.  Optionally the query component, if included, using the "?"
      character as a separator.

  5.  Optionally the fragment identifier component, if included, using
      the "#" character as a separator.

  At this point, the processing application MUST ensure that the
  resulting XMPP address conforms to the rules specified in
  [XMPP-CORE], including application of the relevant [STRINGPREP].  The
  processing application then would either (1) complete further XMPP
  handling itself or (2) invoke a helper application to complete XMPP
  handling; such XMPP handling would most likely consist of the
  following steps:






Saint-Andre                 Standards Track                    [Page 12]

RFC 4622                     XMPP IRIs/URIs                    July 2006


  1.  If not already connected to an XMPP server, connect either as the
      user specified in the authority component or as the configured
      user at the configured XMPP server, normally by adhering to the
      XMPP connection procedures defined in [XMPP-CORE].  (Note: The
      processing application SHOULD ignore the authority component if
      it has been configured with a set of default credentials.)

  2.  Optionally, determine the nature of the intended recipient (e.g.,
      via [JEP-0030]).

  3.  Optionally, present an appropriate interface to a user based on
      the nature of the intended recipient and/or the contents of the
      query component.

  4.  Generate an XMPP stanza that translates any user or application
      inputs into their corresponding XMPP equivalents.

  5.  Send the XMPP stanza via the authenticated server connection for
      delivery to the intended recipient.

2.8.2.  Processing Notes

  It may help implementors to note that the first two steps of "further
  XMPP handling", as described at the end of Section 2.8.1, are similar
  to HTTP authentication ([HTTP-AUTH]), while the next three steps are
  similar to the handling of mailto: URIs ([MAILTO]).

  As noted in Section 2.7.2 of this document, certain characters are
  allowed in the node identifier, domain identifier, and resource
  identifier portions of a native XMPP address but prohibited by the
  "inodeid", "ihost", and "iresid" rules of an XMPP IRI.  The
  percent-encoded octets corresponding to these characters in XMPP IRIs
  MUST be transformed into the characters allowed in XMPP addresses
  when processing an XMPP IRI for interaction with the represented XMPP
  entity.

  Consider the following nasty node in an XMPP IRI:

     xmpp:nasty!%23$%()*+,-.;=%3F[\]^_`{|}[email protected]

  That IRI would be transformed into the following XMPP address:

     nasty!#$%()*+,-.;=?[\]^_`{|}[email protected]








Saint-Andre                 Standards Track                    [Page 13]

RFC 4622                     XMPP IRIs/URIs                    July 2006


  Consider the following repulsive resource in an XMPP IRI (split into
  two lines for layout purposes):

     xmpp:[email protected]
     /repulsive%20!%23"$%25&'()*+,-.%2F:;<=>%3F%40[\]^_`{|}~resource

  That IRI would be transformed into the following XMPP address (split
  into two lines for layout purposes):

     [email protected]
     /repulsive !#"$%&'()*+,-./:;<=>?@[\]^_`{|}~resource

2.8.3.  Processing Example

  Consider the XMPP URI that resulted from the previous example:

      <xmpp:ji%C5%99i@%C4%8Dechy.example/v%20Praze>

  In order to generate a valid XMPP IRI from that URI, the application
  MUST adhere to the procedure specified in Section 3.2 of [IRI],
  resulting in the following IRI:

      <xmpp:ji&#x159;i@&#x10D;echy.example/v%20Praze>

  In accordance with the process specified above, the processing
  application would remove the "xmpp" scheme and ":" character to
  extract the XMPP address from this XMPP IRI, converting any
  percent-encoded octets from the "inodeid", "ihost", and "iresid"
  rules into their character equivalents (e.g., "%20" into the space
  character).

  The result is this XMPP address:

      <ji&#x159;i@&#x10D;echy.example/v Praze>

2.9.  Internationalization

  Because XMPP addresses are [UTF-8] strings and because octets outside
  the [US-ASCII] range within XMPP addresses can be easily converted to
  percent-encoded octets, XMPP addresses are designed to work well with
  Internationalized Resource Identifiers ([IRI]).  In particular, with
  the exceptions of stringprep verification, the conversion of
  syntax-relevant [US-ASCII] characters (e.g., "?"), and the conversion
  of percent-encoded octets from the "inodeid", "ihost", and "iresid"
  rules into their character equivalents (e.g., "%20" into the
  [US-ASCII] space character), an XMPP IRI can be constructed directly
  by prepending the "xmpp" scheme and ":" character to an XMPP address.
  Furthermore, an XMPP IRI can be converted into URI syntax by adhering



Saint-Andre                 Standards Track                    [Page 14]

RFC 4622                     XMPP IRIs/URIs                    July 2006


  to the procedure specified in Section 3.1 of [IRI], and an XMPP URI
  can be converted into IRI syntax by adhering to the procedure
  specified in Section 3.2 of [IRI], thus ensuring interoperability
  with applications that are able to process URIs but unable to process
  IRIs.

3.  IANA Registration of xmpp URI Scheme

  In accordance with [URI-SCHEMES], this section provides the
  information required to register the xmpp URI scheme.

3.1.  URI Scheme Name

  xmpp

3.2.  Status

  permanent

3.3.  URI Scheme Syntax

  The syntax for an xmpp URI is defined below using Augmented
  Backus-Naur Form as specified by [ABNF], where the "fragment",
  "host", "pct-encoded", and "unreserved" rules are defined in [URI]
  and DQUOTE is defined in [ABNF]:

    xmppuri   = "xmpp" ":" hierxmpp [ "?" querycomp ] [ "#" fragment ]
    hierxmpp  = authpath / pathxmpp
    authpath  = "//" authxmpp [ "/" pathxmpp ]
    authxmpp  = nodeid "@" host
    pathxmpp  = [ nodeid "@" ] host [ "/" resid ]
    nodeid    = *( unreserved / pct-encoded / nodeallow )
    nodeallow = "!" / "$" / "(" / ")" / "*" / "+" / "," / ";" /
                "=" / "[" / "\" / "]" / "^" / "`" / "{" / "|" /
                "}"
    resid     = *( unreserved / pct-encoded / resallow )
    resallow   = "!" / DQUOTE / "$" / "&" / "'" / "(" / ")" /
                 "*" / "+" / "," / ":" / ";" / "<" / "=" / ">" /
                 "[" / "\" / "]" / "^" / "`" / "{" / "|" / "}"
    querycomp = querytype [ *pair ]
    querytype = *( unreserved / pct-encoded )
    pair      = ";" key "=" value
    key       = *( unreserved / pct-encoded )
    value     = *( unreserved / pct-encoded )







Saint-Andre                 Standards Track                    [Page 15]

RFC 4622                     XMPP IRIs/URIs                    July 2006


3.4.  URI Scheme Semantics

  The xmpp URI scheme identifies entities that natively communicate
  using the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP), and is
  mainly used for identification rather than for resource location.
  However, if an application that processes an xmpp URI enables
  interaction with the XMPP address identified by the URI, it MUST
  follow the methodology defined in Section 2 of RFC 4622, Use of XMPP
  IRIs and URIs, to reconstruct the encapsulated XMPP address, connect
  to an appropriate XMPP server, and send an appropriate XMPP "stanza"
  (XML fragment) to the XMPP address.  (Note: There is no MIME type
  associated with the xmpp URI scheme.)

3.5.  Encoding Considerations

  In addition to XMPP URIs, there will also be XMPP Internationalized
  Resource Identifiers (IRIs).  Prior to converting an Extensible
  Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) address into an IRI (and in
  accordance with [XMPP-CORE]), the XMPP address must be represented as
  [UTF-8] by the generating application (e.g., by transforming an
  application's internal representation of the address as a UTF-16
  string into a UTF-8 string), and the UTF-8 string must then be
  prepended with the "xmpp" scheme and ":" character.  However, because
  an XMPP URI must contain only [US-ASCII] characters, the UTF-8 string
  of an XMPP IRI must be transformed into URI syntax by adhering to the
  procedure specified in RFC 3987.

3.6.  Applications/protocols That Use This URI Scheme Name

  The xmpp URI scheme is intended to be used by interfaces to an XMPP
  network from non-native user agents, such as web browsers, as well as
  by non-native applications that need to identify XMPP entities as
  full URIs or IRIs.

3.7.  Interoperability Considerations

  There are no known interoperability concerns related to use of the
  xmpp URI scheme.  In order to help ensure interoperability, the
  Jabber Registrar function of the Jabber Software Foundation maintains
  a registry of query types and keys that can be used in the query
  components of XMPP URIs and IRIs, located at
  <http://www.jabber.org/registrar/querytypes.html>.

3.8.  Security Considerations

  See Section 5 of RFC 4622, Security Considerations.





Saint-Andre                 Standards Track                    [Page 16]

RFC 4622                     XMPP IRIs/URIs                    July 2006


3.9.  Contact

  Peter Saint-Andre [mailto:[email protected],
  xmpp:[email protected]]

3.10.  Author/Change Controller

  This scheme is registered under the IETF tree.  As such, the IETF
  maintains change control.

3.11.  References

  [XMPP-CORE]

4.  IANA Considerations

  This document registers a URI scheme.  The registration template can
  be found in Section 3 of this document.  In order to help ensure
  interoperability, the Jabber Registrar function of the Jabber
  Software Foundation maintains a registry of query types and keys that
  can be used in the query components of XMPP URIs and IRIs, located at
  <http://www.jabber.org/registrar/querytypes.html>.

5.  Security Considerations

  Providing an interface to XMPP services from non-native applications
  introduces new security concerns.  The security considerations
  discussed in [IRI], [URI], and [XMPP-CORE] apply to XMPP IRIs, and
  the security considerations discussed in [URI] and [XMPP-CORE] apply
  to XMPP URIs.  In accordance with Section 2.7 of [URI-SCHEMES] and
  Section 7 of [URI], particular security considerations are specified
  in the following sections.

5.1.  Reliability and Consistency

  Given that XMPP addresses of the form [email protected] are typically
  created via registration at an XMPP server or provisioned by an
  administrator of such a server, it is possible that such addresses
  may also be unregistered or deprovisioned.  Therefore, the XMPP
  IRI/URI that identifies such an XMPP address may not be reliably and
  consistently associated with the same principal, account owner,
  application, or device.

  XMPP addresses of the form [email protected]/resource are typically
  even more ephemeral (since a given XMPP resource identifier is
  typically associated with a particular, temporary session of an XMPP
  client at an XMPP server); therefore the XMPP IRI/URI that identifies
  such an XMPP address probably will not reliably and consistently be



Saint-Andre                 Standards Track                    [Page 17]

RFC 4622                     XMPP IRIs/URIs                    July 2006


  associated with the same session.  However, the procedures specified
  in Section 10 of [XMPP-CORE] effectively eliminate any potential
  confusion that might be introduced by the lack of reliability and
  consistency for the XMPP IRI/URI that identifies such an XMPP
  address.

  XMPP addresses of the form domain.tld are typically long-lived XMPP
  servers or associated services; although naturally it is possible for
  server or service administrators to de-commission the server or
  service at any time, typically the IRIs/URIs that identify such
  servers or services are the most reliable and consistent of XMPP
  IRIs/URIs.

  XMPP addresses of the form domain.tld/resource are not yet common on
  XMPP networks; however, the reliability and consistency of XMPP
  IRIs/URIs that identify such XMPP addresses would likely fall
  somewhere between those that identify XMPP addresses of the form
  domain.tld and those that identify XMPP addresses of the form
  [email protected].

5.2.  Malicious Construction

  Malicious construction of XMPP IRIs/URIs is made less likely by the
  prohibition on port numbers in XMPP IRIs/URIs (since port numbers are
  to be discovered using [DNS-SRV] records, as specified in
  [XMPP-CORE]).

5.3.  Back-End Transcoding

  Because the base XMPP protocol is designed to implement the exchange
  of messages and presence information and not the retrieval of files
  or invocation of similar system functions, it is deemed unlikely that
  the use of XMPP IRIs/URIs would result in harmful dereferencing.
  However, if an XMPP protocol extension defines methods for
  information retrieval, it MUST define appropriate controls over
  access to that information.  In addition, XMPP servers SHOULD NOT
  natively parse XMPP IRIs/URIs but instead SHOULD accept only the XML
  wire protocol specified in [XMPP-CORE] and any desired extensions
  thereto.

5.4.  Sensitive Information

  The ability to interact with XMPP entities via a web browser or other
  non-native application may expose sensitive information (such as
  support for particular XMPP application protocol extensions) and
  thereby make it possible to launch attacks that are not possible or
  that are unlikely on a native XMPP network.  Due care must be taken




Saint-Andre                 Standards Track                    [Page 18]

RFC 4622                     XMPP IRIs/URIs                    July 2006


  in deciding what information is appropriate for representation in
  XMPP IRIs or URIs.

  In particular, advertising XMPP IRIs/URIs in publicly accessible
  locations (e.g., on websites) may make it easier for malicious users
  to harvest XMPP addresses from the authority and path components of
  XMPP IRIs/URIs and therefore to send unsolicited bulk communications
  to the users or applications represented by those addresses.  Due
  care should be taken in balancing the benefits of open information
  exchange against the potential costs of unwanted communications.

  To help prevent leaking of sensitive information, passwords and other
  user credentials are forbidden in the authority component of XMPP
  IRIs/URIs; in fact they are not needed, since the fact that
  authentication in XMPP occurs via [SASL] makes it possible to use the
  SASL ANONYMOUS mechanism, if desired.

5.5.  Semantic Attacks

  Despite the existence of non-hierarchical URI schemes such as
  [MAILTO], by association human users may expect all URIs to include
  the "//" characters after the scheme name and ":" character.
  However, in XMPP IRIs/URIs, the "//" characters precede the authority
  component rather than the path component.  Thus,
  xmpp://[email protected] indicates to authenticate as
  "[email protected]", whereas xmpp:[email protected] identifies the
  node "[email protected]".  Processing applications MUST clearly
  differentiate between these forms, and user agents SHOULD discourage
  human users from including the "//" characters in XMPP IRIs/URIs
  since use of the authority component is envisioned to be helpful only
  in specialized scenarios, not more generally.

5.6.  Spoofing

  The ability to include effectively the full range of Unicode
  characters in an XMPP IRI may make it easier to execute certain forms
  of address mimicking (also called "spoofing").  However, XMPP IRIs
  are no different from other IRIs in this regard, and applications
  that will present XMPP IRIs to human users must adhere to best
  practices regarding address mimicking in order to help prevent
  attacks that result from spoofed addresses (e.g., the phenomenon
  known as "phishing").  For details, refer to the Security
  Considerations of [IRI].








Saint-Andre                 Standards Track                    [Page 19]

RFC 4622                     XMPP IRIs/URIs                    July 2006


6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

  [ABNF]         Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
                 Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005.

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

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

  [URI]          Berners-Lee, T., Fielding, R., and L. Masinter,
                 "Uniform Resource Identifier (URI): Generic Syntax",
                 STD 66, RFC 3986, January 2005.

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

6.2.  Informative References

  [CPIM]         Peterson, J., "Common Profile for Instant Messaging
                 (CPIM)", RFC 3860, August 2004.

  [CPP]          Peterson, J., "Common Profile for Presence (CPP)",
                 RFC 3859, August 2004.

  [DNS-SRV]      Gulbrandsen, A., Vixie, P., and L. Esibov, "A DNS RR
                 for specifying the location of services (DNS SRV)",
                 RFC 2782, February 2000.

  [HTML]         Raggett, D., "HTML 4.0 Specification", W3C
                 REC REC-html40-19980424, April 1998.

  [HTTP-AUTH]    Franks, J., Hallam-Baker, P., Hostetler, J., Lawrence,
                 S., Leach, P., Luotonen, A., and L. Stewart, "HTTP
                 Authentication: Basic and Digest Access
                 Authentication", RFC 2617, June 1999.

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

  [JEP-0009]     Adams, D., "Jabber-RPC", JSF JEP 0009, February 2006.






Saint-Andre                 Standards Track                    [Page 20]

RFC 4622                     XMPP IRIs/URIs                    July 2006


  [JEP-0030]     Hildebrand, J., Millard, P., Eatmon, R., and P.
                 Saint-Andre, "Service Discovery", JSF JEP 0030,
                 January 2006.

  [JEP-0045]     Saint-Andre, P., "Multi-User Chat", JSF JEP 0045,
                 September 2005.

  [JEP-0053]     Saint-Andre, P., "Jabber Registrar", JSF JEP 0053,
                 May 2004.

  [JEP-0060]     Millard, P., Saint-Andre, P., and R. Meijer,
                 "Publish-Subscribe", JSF JEP 0060, June 2005.

  [JEP-0072]     Forno, F. and P. Saint-Andre, "SOAP Over XMPP", JSF
                 JEP 0072, December 2005.

  [JEP-0077]     Saint-Andre, P., "In-Band Registration", JSF JEP 0077,
                 January 2006.

  [JEP-0147]     Saint-Andre, P., "XMPP IRI/URI Query Components", JSF
                 JEP 0147, March 2006.

  [MAILTO]       Hoffman, P., Masinter, L., and J. Zawinski, "The
                 mailto URL scheme", RFC 2368, July 1998.

  [MIME]         Freed, N. and N. Borenstein, "Multipurpose Internet
                 Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Two: Media Types",
                 RFC 2046, November 1996.

  [SASL]         Melnikov, A. and K. Zeilenga, "Simple Authentication
                 and Security Layer (SASL)", RFC 4422, June 2006.

  [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/).





Saint-Andre                 Standards Track                    [Page 21]

RFC 4622                     XMPP IRIs/URIs                    July 2006


  [URI-SCHEMES]  Hansen, T., Hardie, T., and L. Masinter, "Guidelines
                 and Registration Procedures for New URI Schemes",
                 RFC 4395, February 2006.

  [US-ASCII]     American National Standards Institute, "Coded
                 Character Set - 7-bit American Standard Code for
                 Information Interchange", ANSI X3.4, 1986.

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

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

Author's Address

  Peter Saint-Andre
  Jabber Software Foundation

  EMail: [email protected]
  URI:   xmpp:[email protected]





























Saint-Andre                 Standards Track                    [Page 22]

RFC 4622                     XMPP IRIs/URIs                    July 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
  [email protected].

Acknowledgement

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







Saint-Andre                 Standards Track                    [Page 23]