Re: [Standards] NEW: XEP-0364 (Current Off-the-Record Messaging Usage)
Daniel actually pointed out (OOB) that the problem I was seeing wasn't that clients aren't handling instance tags properly: Instead it looks like some clients (Conversations does this) don't actually even use the OTR lib for messages which arrive via Carbons, so the instance tags never get used and the message isn't discarded. Since they'll only be decryptable by a single session, I still don't see a benefit to sending to the bare JID though (you'll just be wasting bandwidth and dropping them anyways, so you might as well just send to the full JID and not waste time copying it everywhere else or letting the server accidentally send it to the wrong location). Also, my language probably needs to be changed (or split out into documentation and recommendation sections), since this is an informational OTR and SHOULD only be documenting existing usages (I really need to get rid of the RFC 2119 style language), and it looks like most things send to the full JID. All that being said, OTR isn't a good fit for XMPP and I'm hoping OMEMO/axolotl will replace it once it's been vetted a bit more, so I'm not super concerned either way. Documenting existing usage is probably the best thing to do here. —Sam On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Thijs Alkemade wrote: > >> 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 > -- Sam Whited pub 4096R/54083AE104EA7AD3 https://blog.samwhited.com
Re: [Standards] NEW: XEP-0364 (Current Off-the-Record Messaging Usage)
> 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)
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)
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 >> >
Re: [Standards] NEW: XEP-0364 (Current Off-the-Record Messaging Usage)
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)
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)
> 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
[Standards] NEW: XEP-0364 (Current Off-the-Record Messaging Usage)
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
