Justin Karneges wrote:
> On Thursday 08 November 2007 3:34 pm, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> In general, we decided (again?) that only ESessions and XTLS really make
>> sense to pursue further (i.e., not OpenPGP, S/MIME, OTR, or xmlenc).
>
> To explain:
> - At the meeting, Perfect Forward Secrecy
On Thursday 08 November 2007 3:34 pm, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> In general, we decided (again?) that only ESessions and XTLS really make
> sense to pursue further (i.e., not OpenPGP, S/MIME, OTR, or xmlenc).
To explain:
- At the meeting, Perfect Forward Secrecy (PFS) was decided to be a
requir
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> As you can tell from my submission of the XTLS proposal, the topic of
> end-to-end encryption ("e2e") is once again on the table.
>
> There is a long history to these discussions. Perhaps I'll write a blog
> entry about it one these days.
>
> History aside, the main thi
Hi Justin!
Thanks for your perspective, and sorry for the delayed reply.
Justin Karneges wrote:
> So, here's a question: can we create a protocol that allows the same user
> experience as OTR, but instead is based on something proven? I believe the
> answer is yes. Both RFC 3923 and XTLS wou
On Thursday 01 November 2007 3:49 pm, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> We held a preliminary discussion in the Council room today among some
> folks who are interested (mainly the Board and Council, with invites to
> two people who have implemented Encrypted Sessions and proto-XTLS):
>
> http://www.jabbe
As you can tell from my submission of the XTLS proposal, the topic of
end-to-end encryption ("e2e") is once again on the table.
There is a long history to these discussions. Perhaps I'll write a blog
entry about it one these days.
History aside, the main thing is that at the Council meeting next
