[Standards] OMEMO Key Agreement

Ignat Gavrilov ignat.gavrilov at mailfence.com
Wed May 31 20:37:47 UTC 2017


> "Remko Tronçon" <remko at el-tramo.be> wrote:
> On 31 May 2017 at 20:26, Chris Ballinger <chrisballinger at gmail.com> wrote:
>> What if instead of all this, we just funded a liberally licensed XEdDSA
>> reference implementation and got it audited?
> To be honest, I still think it'd be suboptimal. It would make the XEP still
> dependent on a single (liberal) reference implementation, in a single
> language. I'd much rather depend on standards that are widely accepted and
> available, to give OMEMO the broadest chance of implementation and
> deployment.

Seriously? I thought your problem is that you don't like (I guess for license
reasons) the libsignal implementations. How can you argue there is still a 
dependency on a *single* library, when the proposal is to fund another library
that suits your requirement.

If this helps standardization, I'd happily help funding an audit and/or help
with implementation.


Von: ignat.gavrilov at mailfence.com
Bis: "XMPP Standards" <standards at xmpp.org>
31.05.2017 14:37:43
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 814 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20170531/2909bab1/attachment-0001.sig>

More information about the Standards mailing list