[Standards] XEP-0384: Rejecting? [Was: Re: Proposed XMPP Extension: Ephemeral Messages]

Maxime Buquet pep at bouah.net
Thu Jan 2 10:10:18 UTC 2020


On 2020/01/01, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 at 18:40, Maxime Buquet <pep at bouah.net> wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> I don't think the only harm possible is by rejecting the only widely used
> encryption mechanism we have. Another harm to the community is possible by
> changing what we are without discussion from a standards group interested
> interoperable solutions into a ... well, I honestly don't know what we are
> if not that.

OMEMO is already the status quo. It got accepted I don't exactly know
how (I was just getting in the community at the time) but that's not the
point. We don't have any viable alternative and my suggestion is to keep
it while we find something else.

Yes it's not perfect and that's fine with me. I can think of plenty of
other cases that didn't happen perfectly in the last few months and
we're still alive.

> > If you need a standard for your company use-case, OX is a thing.
> > Otherwise maybe in 5-10 years we'll have MLS?
> >
> Or someone else can publish a non-standard, call it OMEMO.

"Someone can publish a non-standard" is exactly what this is, a
non-standard.

As for OTR, most of the community has been criticising OTR for years, I
don't think bringing it back would do us any good.

> Or is your view that we should allow XEPs based on specifications and
> libraries with restrictive licenses?
> 
> If that is your view, I suggest you raise this at Board level; it would be
> a radical departure from previous policy as established by precedent, and
> would in my view represent a radical change in the XMPP Standards
> Foundation's mission.

This would certainly not pass board, but my view about this specific
point is not relevant anyways. This should have been thought through when
the XEP was accepted. Now we're in it, I say we deal with it.

As the XEP hasn't yet been submitted for Draft, this feels to me as
coming back on previous council decisions and as I remember you seemed
to have an opinion on this.

-- 
Maxime “pep” Buquet
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20200102/a97b651a/attachment.sig>


More information about the Standards mailing list