Re: [Standards] NEW: XEP-0364 (Current Off-the-Record Messaging Usage)

[Sam Whited]

I was experimenting with OTR a bit today and was going to tweak this
section of the document, but I think I'm still siding with Daniel on
this one and am not going to make any change at the moment: Sending to
the full JID just doesn't work with OTR in practice.

Does any client actually use instance tags to discard junk messages?
After a (very cursory) search over some popular clients I didn't see
any of them using instance tags. Would love to be told otherwise
though.

Maybe there's a case for making a future recommendation that says "if
clients support instance tags then allow OTR messages to be copied and
send to the bare JID".

Best,
Sam

Re: [Standards] NEW: XEP-0364 (Current Off-the-Record Messaging Usage)

[Thijs Alkemade]

> On 13 sep. 2015, at 15:50, Sam Whited  wrote:
> 
> I was experimenting with OTR a bit today and was going to tweak this
> section of the document, but I think I'm still siding with Daniel on
> this one and am not going to make any change at the moment: Sending to
> the full JID just doesn't work with OTR in practice.
> 
> Does any client actually use instance tags to discard junk messages?
> After a (very cursory) search over some popular clients I didn't see
> any of them using instance tags. Would love to be told otherwise
> though.

libotr does:

https://bugs.otr.im/projects/libotr/repository/revisions/master/entry/src/message.c#L994

otr4j does:

https://github.com/jitsi/otr4j/blob/bfd0b363a9a7865f68e46db19c095a8f34ace6be/src/main/java/net/java/otr4j/session/OtrAssembler.java#L96

AFAICT those two together cover a great number of clients.

The only implementation of OTR I could find that does not support instance
tags is pure-python-otr:

https://github.com/python-otr/pure-python-otr/issues/28

Best regards,
Thijs



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: [Standards] NEW: XEP-0364 (Current Off-the-Record Messaging Usage)

[Thijs Alkemade]

> However, OTR requires that messages be sent to a particular resource. 
> Therefore clients SHOULD send OTR messages to a full JID, possibly allowing 
> the user to determine which resource they wish to start an encrypted session 
> with.

This is no longer true with OTR v3. This version added “instance tags” which
can distinguish different clients signed in to the same account.

Regards,
Thijs


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: [Standards] NEW: XEP-0364 (Current Off-the-Record Messaging Usage)

[Sam Whited]

Thanks Thijs, I was forgetting about instance tags entirely. Will fix.

—Sam

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Thijs Alkemade  wrote:
>> However, OTR requires that messages be sent to a particular resource. 
>> Therefore clients SHOULD send OTR messages to a full JID, possibly allowing 
>> the user to determine which resource they wish to start an encrypted session 
>> with.
>
> This is no longer true with OTR v3. This version added “instance tags” which
> can distinguish different clients signed in to the same account.
>
> Regards,
> Thijs



-- 
Sam Whited
pub 4096R/54083AE104EA7AD3
https://blog.samwhited.com

Re: [Standards] NEW: XEP-0364 (Current Off-the-Record Messaging Usage)

[Daniel Gultsch]

well instance tags only help the receiving client to discard garbage. if
you send your messages to a full jid you avoid unnecessary traffic.
On Sep 9, 2015 16:16, "Sam Whited"  wrote:

> Thanks Thijs, I was forgetting about instance tags entirely. Will fix.
>
> —Sam
>
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Thijs Alkemade  wrote:
> >> However, OTR requires that messages be sent to a particular resource.
> Therefore clients SHOULD send OTR messages to a full JID, possibly allowing
> the user to determine which resource they wish to start an encrypted
> session with.
> >
> > This is no longer true with OTR v3. This version added “instance tags”
> which
> > can distinguish different clients signed in to the same account.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Thijs
>
>
>
> --
> Sam Whited
> pub 4096R/54083AE104EA7AD3
> https://blog.samwhited.com
>

Re: [Standards] NEW: XEP-0364 (Current Off-the-Record Messaging Usage)

[Daniel Gultsch]

and more importantly makes the behavior (who will actually receive the
message) much more predictable
On Sep 9, 2015 20:32, "Daniel Gultsch"  wrote:

> well instance tags only help the receiving client to discard garbage. if
> you send your messages to a full jid you avoid unnecessary traffic.
> On Sep 9, 2015 16:16, "Sam Whited"  wrote:
>
>> Thanks Thijs, I was forgetting about instance tags entirely. Will fix.
>>
>> —Sam
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Thijs Alkemade  wrote:
>> >> However, OTR requires that messages be sent to a particular resource.
>> Therefore clients SHOULD send OTR messages to a full JID, possibly allowing
>> the user to determine which resource they wish to start an encrypted
>> session with.
>> >
>> > This is no longer true with OTR v3. This version added “instance tags”
>> which
>> > can distinguish different clients signed in to the same account.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Thijs
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sam Whited
>> pub 4096R/54083AE104EA7AD3
>> https://blog.samwhited.com
>>
>

[Standards] NEW: XEP-0364 (Current Off-the-Record Messaging Usage)

[XMPP Extensions Editor]

Version 0.1 of XEP-0364 (Current Off-the-Record Messaging Usage) has been 
released.

Abstract: 
This document outlines the current usage of Off-the-Record 
messaging in
XMPP, its drawbacks, its strengths, and recommendations for 
improving the
end user experience.


Changelog: Initial published version approved by the XMPP Council. (XEP Editor 
(mam))

Diff: http://xmpp.org/extensions/diff/api/xep/0364/diff/0.1/vs/0.1

URL: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0364.html