98 lines
		
	
	
		
			6.2 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			Markdown
		
	
	
	
	
	
			
		
		
	
	
			98 lines
		
	
	
		
			6.2 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			Markdown
		
	
	
	
	
	
| 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. (How ever 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
 | 
