[Standards] OMEMO Key Agreement

Daniel Gultsch daniel at gultsch.de
Fri Jun 2 10:57:19 UTC 2017


2017-06-01 13:12 GMT+02:00 Kevin Smith <kevin.smith at isode.com>:
> On 1 Jun 2017, at 11:22, Daniel Gultsch <daniel at gultsch.de> wrote:
>> I went ahead an created a PR for XEP-0384 to match what is actually
>> implemented in the wild.
>> ...
>> I changed the track from Standards to Historical.
>> I checked: Track changes have happened before and are apparently
>> possible if Council agrees.
>> I think this is the best way forward given that developers and users
>> who are *currently* looking for the OMEMO spec are probably looking
>> for this XEP and not OMEMO-NEXT.
>> Also we don't have to assign a new author as it would be the case if
>> XEP-0384 would become OMEMO-NEXT.
>
> I think that, while someone interested in implementing OMEMO-SIACS might find it convenient for 384 to be changed in this way, what the XSF wants is to push people towards Standards Track XEPs and in this case, 384 seems to be the logical place.
>
> Conceptually, changing 384 to historical and changing the content is very odd

If it is easier 'conceptually' I'm also fine with leaving it in the
Standards track and marking it as deprecated.

The point is that OMEMO in its current form is extremely popular. How
many XEPs have Wikipedia and online news media (LWN, Golem) articles
written about them?
If the current consensuses is to take OMEMO in a different direction
with OMEMO-NEXT that's fine. But don't water down the current state by
sending it to the attic.
The state of OMEMO as described in my PR is what people will use for
the foreseeable future. If the XSF wants to push people in a different
direction (OMEMO-NEXT) they can do this by deprecating XEP-384 (and
create a link to OMEMO-NEXT)

cheers
Daniel


More information about the Standards mailing list