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

Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net> Fri, 06 March 2015 16:58 UTC

Return-Path: <peter@andyet.net>
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 4D7D11ACF6C for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 08:58:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 xVJMdnyXsaj1 for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 08:58:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ig0-f176.google.com (mail-ig0-f176.google.com [209.85.213.176]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 575B31ACEDB for <stox@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Mar 2015 08:58:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by igal13 with SMTP id l13so5365993iga.0 for <stox@ietf.org>; Fri, 06 Mar 2015 08:58:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=KU62UJbAaFnJcM4cZ3Ji0F15gq8odoFr7VNfr9tbIic=; b=k+QbL4zy0bPMhDOUeCUQmdvm7//5FK5NQJuvM/CenaLwMZNfmjvDt1IBLv055Y1tJE FakSDCzLoj6yEFYK2/V+QeP2ad73siDNeO6z0zNpszRQe5Yc7jD8sCixMmIzWy+5S8Cp jARL2F2x+Z3a77apHK7uo4oZlhOO9PjVK3JreCaPhjpEAE88AndGmqZfOyCJk4OgV8Fi +B5CjHW5qPnTMcQcut5+13M6YviCDZIQrv+kSbw24IeT6PRM9Tey2XleJMQL89K+CyXt 0ddIYwucpkWRh4sUMPz4CFIt6XcUGiuMnPf4M9GqI8fNXkD6cqvykr+8SLrCShojt25W IiRQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnSvGM/4U/GEiHMxWZAIlBJZse+V0RnFWEKJr9cWE2ySB1e9C7GqF8Z7gmEkJ7mAJOC71hr
X-Received: by 10.50.66.235 with SMTP id i11mr29633753igt.40.1425661108795; Fri, 06 Mar 2015 08:58:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 130sm7277298ioz.10.2015.03.06.08.58.27 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 06 Mar 2015 08:58:28 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54F9DCB3.3090609@andyet.net>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 09:58:27 -0700
From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <20150303204228.1780.23346.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54F79AB2.8090700@andyet.net> <54F8CEDD.4030403@stpeter.im> <54F98508.30100@cs.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <54F98508.30100@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/tDi-OGxFMBkPm6EvtfuNt4wInvQ>
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 16:58:45 -0000

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/