Ben Laurie: > On 2 October 2016 at 13:39, Ximin Luo <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I can see the benefits in agreeing to standardise a cryptographic component >> including the packet flows and algorithms, but standardising the exact wire >> representation is less useful (and people have less incentive to do it) if >> there is no need for interoperation. For example, even ed25519 private keys >> have no standard format; there are about 3 different ones and everyone picks >> their own. Not that this *particular example* is a big deal, I'm just >> demonstrating how lack of interoperability reduces the need to standardise. > > Lack of interop is a bug, not a feature. >
I very much agree, I should've restructured my sentences to be clear about that. We definitely want an interoperable messaging protocol, i.e. there *is* a need for this. I was just trying to not be too negative about the topic at hand, i.e. merely standardising a ratchet component. It's somewhat useful, but the lack of an interoperable messaging protocol to "drive" it, IMO greatly reduces how useful it is - including reduced incentives for different groups to adopt it. X -- GPG: ed25519/56034877E1F87C35 GPG: rsa4096/1318EFAC5FBBDBCE https://github.com/infinity0/pubkeys.git _______________________________________________ Messaging mailing list [email protected] https://moderncrypto.org/mailman/listinfo/messaging
