[Standards] Don't let today be the day we bury OMEMO

Vanitas Vitae vanitasvitae at riseup.net
Wed Jun 7 20:49:28 UTC 2017


I agree. Its not exactly nice to deny the existing implementations the
name OMEMO, since those implementations are what gave OMEMO its
reputation, so could we please agree on the fact, that existing
implementations are OMEMO?


Am 07.06.2017 um 22:46 schrieb Ignat Gavrilov:
>> From: Kevin Smith <kevin.smith at isode.com>
>> I can understand that argument, but I think a lot of people want to have the currently deployed thing-that-isn’t-OMEMO (OMEMO-siacs) in XEP-0384. I’d rather it was documented in a different XEP too, but putting it in 384 is part of the compromise.
>>
> 1. A lot of people don't give a f*** on what is in XEP-384, those people are called users and they build the large majority of the XMPP network.
> 2. I think we should adapt to the fact that the thing-that-isn’t-OMEMO is what most users (again the majority) recognize as OMEMO. Maybe we should start calling it OMEMO and the-thing-that-is-in-the-XEP-but-nobody-cares shall be XEP-OMEMO? OMEMO did exist before it was a XEP so obviously OMEMO is not solely defined by what is in the XEP.
>
> Ignat.
> _______________________________________________
> Standards mailing list
> Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
> Unsubscribe: Standards-unsubscribe at xmpp.org
> _______________________________________________



More information about the Standards mailing list