[Standards] XEP-0384: Rejecting? [Was: Re: Proposed XMPP Extension: Ephemeral Messages]
pep at bouah.net
Wed Jan 1 18:39:37 UTC 2020
On 2019/12/30, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 at 17:16, Philipp Hörist <philipp at hoerist.com> wrote:
> > Am Mo., 30. Dez. 2019 um 17:57 Uhr schrieb Dave Cridland <
> > dave at cridland.net>:
> >> That specification isn't linked from XEP-0384 at all, so how are we
> >> supposed to be able to tell it affects OMEMO?
> > You can't, and the XEP does not mandate any specific implementation or
> > protocol version of the non-standard SignalProtocol. The XEP says
> > > The signal protocol currently only exists in GPLv3-licensed
> > implementations maintained by OpenWhisperSystems.
> > So it means, you use the libraries OpenWhisperSystems currently offers and
> > if you want to know what they do you read the docs on their page.
> > I know this is not a beautiful thing in Standards world, but that's what
> > it is at the moment.
> The Council has consistently rejected such specifications as a result. I'll
> raise this at the next Council meeting, and move to Reject it - it should
> be Deferred at this point anyway.
I'm curious if you have any viable alternative to propose while you
reject the only widely used encryption mechanism? If not, I think doing
this is only going to harm the community.
"You don't have any standard viable E2EE mechanism", "The only E2EE
mechanism that's used is not even standard, how do I do interop?"
(Note that this is similar to how aesgcm is currently done, or oob+link,
As much as I am concerned with these being adopted by implementations in
the first place because. They're here because there was a need that
It feels to me our current process doesn't reflect the reality of
If you need a standard for your company use-case, OX is a thing.
Otherwise maybe in 5-10 years we'll have MLS?
Maxime “pep” Buquet
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Standards