On 24.06.19 21:44, Jonas Schäfer wrote: >> URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/xep-sce.html > 5. It does not discuss why existing options like xmlsec have not been used. > > As mentioned, these aren’t blockers for Experimental for me. I find (1) and > (5) particularly important before advancement to Draft though.
I'd expect that xmlsec would come up at some point in this discussion and I definitely think that we should do something like SEC based on xmlsec. There is no good reason those two XEPs should not co-exist side-by-side and there are sure users who are willing to pay the price for xmlsec. But I expect that for some implementations something like the SEC approach would just be sufficient without having to deal with the complexity of xmlsec. - Florian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
