Ximin Luo <[email protected]> wrote:
>Away from the overall mpOTR discussions, I spent a lot of time on the >side talking about forward-secrecy ratchets with Trevor. We also talked >about the advantages and disadvantages of a pair-based system. (This is >opposed to a group-based system that most others are thinking about). >We and some others think it would be worth pursuing this further, with >the understanding that this would not scale to massive groups. Despite >this, the advantages are: When you say pair-based, does this mean proxying between pairs to build up a secure group? Perhaps this is similar to what Jitsi does for encrypted conference calls (though through audio mixing), which I have been calling "hub and spoke"? Regardless, from a use case perspective what ChatSecure users tend to ask for more (now that we have XMPP MUC support) is to have small group, short term encrypted chats (scrums, planning meetings, business discussions) as opposed to large scale persistent secure discussions. There is an inherent cognitive dissonance between the idea of a private chat and a say a group of more than 10 or 20 people. As for concrete solutions, up until recently I have been considering adopting CryptoCats existing Android mpOTR implementation just to show interop is possible. I wouldn't want that to be seen as a snub to any of these efforts however, and the pair-based approach seems like one we would like to support as well, in an interim way. Happy to see the outcome of RWC and sorry we missed it. +n _______________________________________________ OTR-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cypherpunks.ca/mailman/listinfo/otr-dev
