Re: [Standards] OMEMO and Olm

Hi Andrey, My 2 cents: - Clarifications (like [2] and [3]) sound sensible. There's a lot that needs better wording, clarification, disambiguation, and rationale. I think this is something that should probably be done as the dust settles on the technical details of the XEP. - For [4]: I added

Re: [Standards] XEP-0369 (MIX): Early stages of a clients connection

Jonas, Thanks for the writeup.I will look to address in the next update. I may find issues expressing this, and will revert to the list if needed Rgds Steve > -Original Message- > From: Standards [mailto:standards-boun...@xmpp.org] On Behalf Of Jonas > Wielicki > Sent: 18

[Standards] XEP-0369 (MIX): Early stages of a clients connection

Dear Steve and others, In the xsf@ MUC, we were discussion the interaction of MIX and roster, and the question what happens with roster versioning and MIX entries came up. The key scenario which is unclear is the following: Assuming a server and client both support and use roster versioning,

Re: [Standards] OMEMO and Olm

> I look forward to reading the discussion on this list... Sure ;) My goal is to create a XEP for encrypted Jingle file transfer (probably OMEMO as well as other crypto). Since I'm pretty much a noob when it comes to writing XEPs, the mailing list is probably the best place to get feedback :)

Re: [Standards] OMEMO and Olm

On 18 May 2017 at 13:20, VanitasVitae wrote: > Regarding file transfer: I'll probably tackle that as part of my Google > Summer of Code project, so we might get in contact later :) I look forward to reading the discussion on this list... Dave.

Re: [Standards] OMEMO and Olm

Regarding file transfer: I'll probably tackle that as part of my Google Summer of Code project, so we might get in contact later :) Vanitasvitae Am 18. Mai 2017 12:57:29 MESZ schrieb Andrey Gursky : >Hi, > >On Wed, 17 May 2017 16:59:53 +0100 Dave Cridland wrote: > >[

Re: [Standards] OMEMO and Olm

Hi, On Wed, 17 May 2017 16:59:53 +0100 Dave Cridland wrote: [ cut ] > A lengthy discussion ensued on this list, involving both Matthew > Hodgson and others who clearly know a lot more about Crypto than I do. > None of their arguments were answered. Remko supplied a PR to match > these. It seems