[Standards] Discussion venue Re: e2e privacy for XMPP Re: RFC 3923 (e2e with S/MIME) and OpenPGP
dave at cridland.net
Wed Nov 20 13:37:12 UTC 2013
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Carlo v. Loesch <CvL at mail.symlynx.com>wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 01:04:25PM +0000, Dave Cridland wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Carlo v. Loesch <CvL at mail.symlynx.com
> > > If you don't accept social graph protection as a more important
> > > priority than interoperability,
> > "Interoperability" is a posh word for "works".
> So you mean Tor is interoperable, although just with itself?
No, that'd be "intraoperable". That's not a word, though.
Building something interoperable means that the design is known to work -
it's possible to build a new implementation from scratch and have it work
alongside and with the existing deployment.
There's implications of the design being fully specified, reliable, and so
Without interoperability, you might get functionality, but it'll be either
a silo or a monoculture.
If it's a monoculture it won't stay that way - you'll end up with version
drift - in which case you'll either need to figure out interoperability
(hard to do in retrospect for a fracturing monoculture) or else eventually
suffer functionality fracture. If it's a silo... Well, we don't like silos,
I think we can agree there.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Standards