2017-06-21 19:02 GMT+02:00 Remko Tronçon <re...@el-tramo.be>: >> I somehow got the feeling that some people on this mailing list actually >> don't want the OMEMO standard to evolve, when it does not include the >> changes they want. > > > I agree, I get the same feeling.
In case you two are not the only ones with that feeling and in case 'some people' refers (among others) to me: Let me clear up the reason for my backlash. When we evolve OMEMO in a way that diverges significantly from it's current form I can no longer effort to be a driving factor behind it. (Implementing it, pushing other people to implement it, advertising it and so forth) simply because the gains from my point of view (and for my users) are not significant enough or at least are outweighed by other priorities. My worries are that without someone actually pushing the XEP and selling it to developers or finding the money to audit it, the XEP will either come to a standstill or at least wont maintain it's momentum. (Look at the OX-XEP for example that doesn't have a very active community pushing it.) My argument has never been that moving all OMEMO devices into one multiple items of the same PEP node would be a bad thing. I never said that having a liberally licensed implementations of the underlying algorithms is a bad thing. I never questioned that stanza encryption might be nice to have. I'm merely saying that all those things are hard to achieve. That's why that compromise with the warning on top of future XEP-versions linking to that usable, implemented and audited version v0.3 works well for me. Because it releases the pressure of having to come up with a version of OMEMO-NEXT within a reasonable time frame. - Daniel _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
