[messaging] IETF standardization of a next-gen messaging protocol
infinity0 at pwned.gg
Sun Oct 2 12:16:00 PDT 2016
> On 2 October 2016 at 13:39, Ximin Luo <infinity0 at pwned.gg> wrote:
>> I can see the benefits in agreeing to standardise a cryptographic component
>> including the packet flows and algorithms, but standardising the exact wire
>> representation is less useful (and people have less incentive to do it) if
>> there is no need for interoperation. For example, even ed25519 private keys
>> have no standard format; there are about 3 different ones and everyone picks
>> their own. Not that this *particular example* is a big deal, I'm just
>> demonstrating how lack of interoperability reduces the need to standardise.
> Lack of interop is a bug, not a feature.
I very much agree, I should've restructured my sentences to be clear about that.
We definitely want an interoperable messaging protocol, i.e. there *is* a need for this. I was just trying to not be too negative about the topic at hand, i.e. merely standardising a ratchet component. It's somewhat useful, but the lack of an interoperable messaging protocol to "drive" it, IMO greatly reduces how useful it is - including reduced incentives for different groups to adopt it.
More information about the Messaging