[messaging] IETF standardization of a next-gen messaging protocol
carlo von lynX
lynX at i.know.you.are.psyced.org
Mon Oct 3 04:19:44 PDT 2016
I don't think any technology currently in use is sufficiently
satisfying requirements of privacy and anonymity, so I would
recommend to resist the urge to try to standardize things that
no-one has shown to even work. It reminds me of 2010 when there
was a buzz of standardizing federated social web things that
never actually scaled, never actually preserved privacy and
never actually convinced the user audience. And it reminds me
of 1999 when Jabber became XMPP and was declared a standard
even though all attempts to solve the issues around scalability
of federation were refused by the XMPP council. Until today XMPP
only scales within cloud deployments, not on the open Internet.
On Sat, Oct 01, 2016 at 08:07:04PM -0700, Tony Arcieri wrote:
> Clearly the Signal protocol seems like
> a great starting place, although I was talking to some Matrix developers
> about their Olm and Megolm protocols as well.
So we're back at calling silos and federations a success
model although they aren't except for those who run them?
Then of course you can standardize whatever you have, even
if it doesn't solve any problems. We know that NSA still has
access to all the communications for as long as no independently
built binaries are in use. What's the point in standardizing
Axolotl procedures if there is no guarantee the code isn't
systematically bypassed in respect of current US legislation?
> I expect some will say it's too early to do this, but the IETF moves at
> something of a glacial pace, and there is already some "rough consensus and
> running code" in this space, along with what seems like a decent amount of
If there is a rough consensus to accept silos and backdoors
in Play Store downloads, then go ahead. Standards bodies
cannot solve political problems anyway.
E-mail is public! Talk to me in private using encryption:
More information about the Messaging