On 31.05.2017 22:58, Dave Cridland wrote: > On 31 May 2017 at 21:16, Chris Ballinger <[email protected]> wrote: >> This is all so ridiculous. If I arrange funding for a permissive XEdDSA >> implementation and audit can we stop making personal attacks and move on >> from this nonsense? > > When the next major OpenSSL release comes out - which many XMPP > clients will want to be using to get TLS 1.3 - it'll almost certainly > have everything required to build Remko's proposal. Meanwhile, you can > build it now from libsodium, for example. > > But XEdDSA is an algorithm unique to Signal's needs. It honestly > doesn't matter if it's good crypto or not - and I believe it's > entirely sound - it won't see widespread adoption because it's such a > niche.
Quite contrary I suspect that if we never switch XEP-0384 towards XEdDSA the existing user base won't follow whatever the XEP says and will continue to use XEdDSA for the foreseeable future (which I would call widespread adoption of XEdDSA). Nevertheless that Sam's Go submission is very likely a violation of license terms if it gets merged as is, I, just like Daniel, think that asking people to create a XEdDSA implementation under a license that suits their needs is not to asking to much. On the other hand, considering that OMEMO is major success and a big step towards an open standard end-to-end encrypted alternative to the existing proprietary messaging systems, I think it is unrealistic to push a change that will render the currently used fingerprints invalid. For the same reasons, and on a first look, I feel like Remko's Key Agreement v2 suggestion just introduces unnecessary additional complexity. - Florian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
