Re: [Standards] OMEMO Discussion Summary 2017
On 22 June 2017 at 09:48, Daniel Gultsch wrote: > Questions for OMEMO-NEXT for the new author to collect feedback on. > (Each of them deserves it's own thread) > Another category of questions that I think need to be added to that list is around key exchange and trust, bearing usability in mind: - How are keys validated (i.e. what's the fingerprint? Is there a fingerprint per contact, or per conversation (like what Signal does)? What in the case of multiple devices?). - Recommendation of trust models (e.g. TOFU) - Are there extensions needed to make adding new devices more usable (e.g. cross-signing of own keys to not break the TOFU model when a new device is added for the same JID). Remko ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] [XEP-0277] Should we use the whole RFC when a XEP is based upon one
Le vendredi 23 juin 2017, 19:18:39 CEST Dave Cridland a écrit : > On 21 June 2017 at 21:07, Goffi wrote: > > your opinion is really welcome on this question > > Mine probably won't be. :-) It sure is! > Atom is designed to be standalone, and the combination mandates a lot > of redundant information that is in two places needlessly at once, > which means information used by XMPP is essentially duplicated in Atom > for no purpose, and information already in Atom, which is unused, is > also in... You get the idea. > > For the most part, I'd be looking to implement Atom - if at all - as > an export/feed format for an XMPP-based discussion system, and not use > it as an internal payload format. The trick is that Atom already offers a couple of things which are not standardized yet in XMPP, like categories, or which are not easy to obtain like modification date. And XEP-0277 allows to easily link one or several comment nodes. This could be done entirely in XMPP alone, but it is actually not possible, and re-using existing specification sounds like a good idea instead of re- inventing the wheel. If you remember I've made a talk about it in XMPP summit 2 years ago, with a demo of the format and a blog engine. This is a major subject for at least 2 projects (SàT and Movim, Jappix being unmaintained today, and I'm not a sure about Live Jabber), and I hope to see others coming in the future, so it would be nice to track some interest on this subject, as we don't have the resources to restart everything from scratch in X years. Goffi ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
Re: [Standards] [XEP-0277] Should we use the whole RFC when a XEP is based upon one
Hi thank for your anwser Le jeudi 22 juin 2017, 09:40:10 CEST Jonas Wielicki a écrit : > On Mittwoch, 21. Juni 2017 22:07:48 CEST Goffi wrote: > I have to admit I have not looked deeply into the matters. XEP-0277 is still > experimental, that’s good. Actually I've tagger XEP-0277 but it's a more generic question: if a XEP is based upon a RFC, does that mean that the whole RFC is applicable? > I think that it makes sense to generally allow all of Atom to be used. > […] > That’s just my two cents from someone not deeply into the matters. OK, so that tends to says "yes" to the previous question, thanks! Goffi ___ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org ___
