[Members] Publishing Non-Open-Standard Specifications

Remko Tronçon remko at el-tramo.be
Thu Jan 16 17:42:15 UTC 2020


> OMEMO has happened so let's accept that fact and move on.

This is a fine example of a slippery slope the XSF should be careful of.
When 2 years ago a change to OMEMO (which started out fine) was
pointed out to have serious IPR issues, the change was still accepted
after much discussion. I assume this was under the assumption that it
was to document a current state, and that the issues would get fixed
eventually. They didn't, and now the argument is used that 'the
protocol has happened, deal with it'.

I don't see why a standards body should put their specs under the same
roof as historical documentation of protocols that happened to be used
in the wild. It becomes hard to make a distinction what is an
open/endorsed standard and what not.

Remko


More information about the Members mailing list