[Standards] e2e privacy for XMPP Re: RFC 3923 (e2e with S/MIME) and OpenPGP

Philipp Hancke fippo at goodadvice.pages.de
Tue Nov 19 20:42:58 UTC 2013

>> There is the hypothesis that any federated network tends to
>> cluster around a number of large nodes. E.g. for XMPP this would be
>> gmail, jabber.org, jabber.ccc.de (applause to their efforts on
>> making themselves unreliable!), ...
> This is true even of unfederated networks (Facebook, Twitter,
> LinkedIn, Skype, the current crop of cool new mobile chat apps). My
> hypothesis: human beings are herd animals and prefer to flock together
> in large numbers. "Are you on hot-new-service-X?" It's much easier to
> think and act that way than to strike out on your own.

Right. The benefit of federation is that _I_ can ignore the herd to some 

>> Interdomain federation is hard, especially delivering the same
>> user experience as between users on the same domain.
> This is a huge factor. It's much easier to offer a consistent and
> quality experience if you control both ends of the pipe

Yeah, http://vimeo.com/77257232 talks about that -- and the lack of open 

I do think that webrtc gives us a good chance to move the baseline 
experience from basic IM + presence to rich federation. And heck, we've 
got some movement here ;-)

What amuses me most about webrtc is that "rich media chat" was listed as 
#6 of the six oldest ideas in chat @ 
and "in-browser chat" is #2

> Most people always complain about
> how there's no great email client, no great IRC client, no great
> Jabber client, and so on (don't even get me started on SIP clients!)
> - -- with plenty of justification.

See above, as you say it's not limited to XMPP. It's a more general lack 
of accepting non-developer roles in opensource.

Peter: I really appreciate that you enjoy writing specifications!

More information about the Standards mailing list