[Standards] Proposed XMPP Extension: Explicit Message Encryption

Emmanuel Gil Peyrot linkmauve at linkmauve.fr
Fri Sep 2 10:24:08 UTC 2016


On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 08:40:24PM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> > The name metadata should either be qualified by a lang or simply be
> > removed. I feel like removing is the right thing: Clients/Libraries
> > either know the encryption mechanism by its namespace, and are possible
> > able to tell the user to install a certain plugin to enable the
> > encryption mechanism. And otherwise they could simply say "The received
> > message was encrypted with an unknown mechanism (jabber:x:encrypted)".
> Agreed.
> > That said: I really like the EME XEP.
> Yes, it seems fine. +1 to publishing it (if the Council folks are paying
> attention).
> §3.2 mentions a list of supported protocols. What happens if we add another
> supported protocol to EME? (Because, you know, we have so many end-to-end
> encryption protocols!) Do we create a registry of supported protocols and
> add another to the registry? Do we update the spec, perhaps even with a
> change to the namespace version?

I made this part more explicit in candidate version 0.0.2[1], it may
help to have a registry, but we can only mandate an implementation to
know about the ones currently listed, this was the reasoning for this

> Peter

[1] https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/241/files#diff-22c9de9f1781a8add91d805f84205b69L125

Emmanuel Gil Peyrot

More information about the Standards mailing list