[Standards] RFC 3923 (e2e with S/MIME) and OpenPGP
stpeter at stpeter.im
Mon Jul 1 17:06:07 UTC 2013
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 7/1/13 10:24 AM, Daniele Ricci wrote:
> Greetings, I was reading RFC 3923 ,
Yeah, we're not proud of that spec.
> and it always talks about S/MIME encrypted message format.
IETF dogma at the time required that.
> What about applying PGP/MIME instead
As in http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0027.html perhaps?
> - or better, let the RFC handle both cases?
That can introduce more complexity.
> If I understand correctly, draft-miller-xmpp-e2e-* are replaced by
> RFC 3923.
I think you mean: draft-miller-xmpp-e2e replaces RFC 3923.
> Is there some draft to follow/improve where e2e+PGP/MIME is
> By the way: encryption/signing in XMPP is very confusing: there are
> at least a dozen documents (RFCs and XEPs) defining it - of course
> I should follow approved XEPs and RFCs, but I'm also looking
> around: maybe some XEPs are already widely implemented or they will
> be approved soon.
I admire your optimism. :-)
The technologies that seem most interesting now are:
(1) Matt's work on draft-miller-xmpp-e2e
(2) OTR (potentially with future enhancements to make it more
Some energy is going into both of those (Paul Wouters and I plan to
sync up at the IETF meeting at the end of July to work on an
Internet-Draft providing informational documentation about OTR). Since
you seem to care about this issue, your feedback would be welcome.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Standards