[Standards] OMEMO Discussion Summary 2017

Daniel Gultsch daniel at gultsch.de
Wed Jun 21 17:54:24 UTC 2017


2017-06-21 19:02 GMT+02:00 Remko Tronçon <remko at el-tramo.be>:
>> I somehow got the feeling that some people on this mailing list actually
>> don't want the OMEMO standard to evolve, when it does not include the
>> changes they want.
>
>
> I agree, I get the same feeling.

In case you two are not the only ones with that feeling and in case
'some people' refers (among others) to me: Let me clear up the reason
for my backlash.

When we evolve OMEMO in a way that diverges significantly from it's
current form I can no longer effort to be a driving factor behind it.
(Implementing it, pushing other people to implement it, advertising it
and so forth) simply because the gains from my point of view (and for
my users) are not significant enough or at least are outweighed by
other priorities.

My worries are that without someone actually pushing the XEP and
selling it to developers or finding the money to audit it, the XEP
will either come to a standstill or at least wont maintain it's
momentum. (Look at the OX-XEP for example that doesn't have a very
active community pushing it.)

My argument has never been that moving all OMEMO devices into one
multiple items of the same PEP node would be a bad thing. I never said
that having a liberally licensed implementations of the underlying
algorithms is a bad thing. I never questioned that stanza encryption
might be nice to have.

I'm merely saying that all those things are hard to achieve.

That's why that compromise with the warning on top of future
XEP-versions linking to that usable, implemented and audited version
v0.3 works well for me. Because it releases the pressure of having to
come up with a version of OMEMO-NEXT within a reasonable time frame.

- Daniel


More information about the Standards mailing list