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

[Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[e-mail]>]

On 3/6/15 3:44 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
>
> 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?

OTR doesn't care about the underlying messaging technology, since it 
treats them all as dumb transports. So yes, in OTR terms I suppose you'd 
say there is a session of some kind, but in SIP / RFC 3428 terms it's 
just a series of single instant messages ("page mode" IM), not a 
formally negotiated chat session ("session mode" IM) as happens in MSRP 
/ RFC 4975.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://andyet.com/