Re: [Stox] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT)

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Fri, 06 March 2015 10:44 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1530D1A01F9; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 02:44:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6f6x5bSuOJNI; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 02:44:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 985E51A07BC; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 02:44:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58689BEAF; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 10:44:23 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rYc7kI5spzFa; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 10:44:23 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [134.226.36.180] (stephen-think.dsg.cs.tcd.ie [134.226.36.180]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2547CBE7D; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 10:44:23 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <54F98508.30100@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 10:44:24 +0000
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <20150303204228.1780.23346.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F79AB2.8090700@andyet.net> <54F8CEDD.4030403@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <54F8CEDD.4030403@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/9zjss-vwo5xOohwPZ-1QOP873HI>
Cc: stox@ietf.org, yana@jitsi.org, stox-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-stox-chat.all@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Stox] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-stox-chat-10: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: stox@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP-TO-XMPP Working Group discussion list <stox.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/stox>, <mailto:stox-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/stox/>
List-Post: <mailto:stox@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stox-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stox>, <mailto:stox-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 10:44:36 -0000


On 05/03/15 21:47, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> For instant messages, it is possible to use [RFC3862] and
>    [RFC3923], but those methods are not widely implemented.  A more
>    widely implemented albeit unstandardized method for interoperable
>    end-to-end encryption would be Off-the-Record Messaging [OTR].

I like that but just to check - what you're calling IM here
does work with OTR, right? OTR requires an e2e roundtrip and
IM otherwise seemed to be more fire-and-forget, at least e2e.
So is there a possible terminology glitch?

Put another way - I know that OTR will work, but there'll now
be a few messages at least to do the handshake and not just
the one, so are we actually doing a chat session and not an
IM at that point?

Cheers,
S.