Hi, On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Hanno Böck <[email protected]> wrote:
> * I assume your intention is to standardize an encryption layer only > and not a new messaging protocol, right? (That's the way the thing > that's commonly called the signal protocol is used right now due to > various ecosystem constrains and also the explicit wish of its main > developer.) With the implicit assumption that this protocol is > supposed to be used within separate protocols that don't > interoperate. I wonder if a design with lack of interoperability in > mindmatches IETFs goals. > Well, it would provide a building block for other IETF and non-IETF protocols to use. Nothing stops it from being used in an interoperable fashion. For example SIMPLE and XMPP clients could have a E2E secured communication via the protocol with the help of gateways. You just need to have some ID mapping so the correct keys for the crypto can be looked up. I think it would be a fit for standardization at the IETF. * How does this relate to other standardization efforts? (You already > mentioned olm, there's also OMEMO which is currently gaining some > traction.) > OMEMO is currently being adjusted to use Olm instead of Signal, so that it will be more implementation and standardization friendly [1], and will probably be standardized by the XSF afterwards. Cheers, Tobi [1] https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/251
_______________________________________________ Messaging mailing list [email protected] https://moderncrypto.org/mailman/listinfo/messaging
