Tobias Markmann: > Hi, > > On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Hanno Böck <ha...@hboeck.de> wrote: > >> * I assume your intention is to standardize an encryption layer only >> and not a new messaging protocol, right? (That's the way the thing >> that's commonly called the signal protocol is used right now due to >> various ecosystem constrains and also the explicit wish of its main >> developer.) With the implicit assumption that this protocol is >> supposed to be used within separate protocols that don't >> interoperate. I wonder if a design with lack of interoperability in >> mindmatches IETFs goals. >> > > Well, it would provide a building block for other IETF and non-IETF > protocols to use. Nothing stops it from being used in an interoperable > fashion. For example SIMPLE and XMPP clients could have a E2E secured > communication via the protocol with the help of gateways. You just need to > have some ID mapping so the correct keys for the crypto can be looked up. I > think it would be a fit for standardization at the IETF. >
For sure, but then it should be called a common encryption component and *not* "standardisation of a next-gen messaging protocol" (the subject of this thread). Calling it a messaging protocol confuses things, especially when someone tries to make an *actual* interoperable messaging protocol, then they get asked questions like "oh but doesn't XXX exist already". X -- GPG: ed25519/56034877E1F87C35 GPG: rsa4096/1318EFAC5FBBDBCE https://github.com/infinity0/pubkeys.git _______________________________________________ Messaging mailing list Messaging@moderncrypto.org https://moderncrypto.org/mailman/listinfo/messaging
