Hi, On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 08:40:24PM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: […] > > The name metadata should either be qualified by a lang or simply be > > removed. I feel like removing is the right thing: Clients/Libraries > > either know the encryption mechanism by its namespace, and are possible > > able to tell the user to install a certain plugin to enable the > > encryption mechanism. And otherwise they could simply say "The received > > message was encrypted with an unknown mechanism (jabber:x:encrypted)". > > Agreed. > > > That said: I really like the EME XEP. > > Yes, it seems fine. +1 to publishing it (if the Council folks are paying > attention). > > §3.2 mentions a list of supported protocols. What happens if we add another > supported protocol to EME? (Because, you know, we have so many end-to-end > encryption protocols!) Do we create a registry of supported protocols and > add another to the registry? Do we update the spec, perhaps even with a > change to the namespace version?
I made this part more explicit in candidate version 0.0.2[1], it may help to have a registry, but we can only mandate an implementation to know about the ones currently listed, this was the reasoning for this table. > > Peter [1] https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/241/files#diff-22c9de9f1781a8add91d805f84205b69L125 -- Emmanuel Gil Peyrot _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
