[messaging] IETF standardization of a next-gen messaging protocol

Ximin Luo infinity0 at pwned.gg
Sun Oct 2 04:48:00 PDT 2016

Tobias Markmann:
> Hi,
> On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Hanno Böck <hanno at hboeck.de> wrote:
>> * I assume your intention is to standardize an encryption layer only
>>   and not a new messaging protocol, right? (That's the way the thing
>>   that's commonly called the signal protocol is used right now due to
>>   various ecosystem constrains and also the explicit wish of its main
>>   developer.) With the implicit assumption that this protocol is
>>   supposed to be used within separate protocols that don't
>>   interoperate. I wonder if a design with lack of interoperability in
>>   mindmatches IETFs goals.
> Well, it would provide a building block for other IETF and non-IETF
> protocols to use. Nothing stops it from being used in an interoperable
> fashion. For example SIMPLE and XMPP clients could have a E2E secured
> communication via the protocol with the help of gateways. You just need to
> have some ID mapping so the correct keys for the crypto can be looked up. I
> think it would be a fit for standardization at the IETF.

For sure, but then it should be called a common encryption component and *not* "standardisation of a next-gen messaging protocol" (the subject of this thread).

Calling it a messaging protocol confuses things, especially when someone tries to make an *actual* interoperable messaging protocol, then they get asked questions like "oh but doesn't XXX exist already".


GPG: ed25519/56034877E1F87C35
GPG: rsa4096/1318EFAC5FBBDBCE

More information about the Messaging mailing list