Re: [xmpp] End-to-End Encryption Milestone

Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net> Tue, 25 February 2014 11:23 UTC

Return-Path: <dave@cridland.net>
X-Original-To: xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 253821A0449 for <xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 03:23:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.322
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.322 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 AgzV2b_cBU6E for <xmpp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 03:23:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ob0-x22b.google.com (mail-ob0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 477A11A0440 for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 03:23:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ob0-f171.google.com with SMTP id vb8so8382378obc.2 for <xmpp@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 03:23:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cridland.net; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=nuNowAGj7wSIagnqtOF5+SzSB29Xsx6J45N/GSOB20k=; b=T777HPGeMJu5TSVIkTfth1sOq4Tn4mEj04qW8vkWeo++uYIjYP4VaahQ31tpWoftsa 5zV4XunAm4gmRyeE29ljGTiAWAfqYJ+UQwnUeetce9m7RpChVBwx+WdNzZxRM8K5TTG4 ApMv9ezop191cOG3YSZ0DMj1kTAWbzkMs4/3Q=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=nuNowAGj7wSIagnqtOF5+SzSB29Xsx6J45N/GSOB20k=; b=Kko3V21RY526wM+pzfMq3SbMB5rC2YBB/Gtbnr4ZYow3SzIvhFuKQmjuICSia51ZZO R3GEHJo6/yu8G+YDz1yDTsEq6n9nom4wHZYP2rF8Vh6xmU2Z4yzcTbNY5UAQhQjEvW10 idCKYd3KU2yhL+ktle0BYrPSDlojWqSXxcB1N0s2raGU37+ET+4mkq5O92r4/0PkbZXI rgAviGxMXmoIrZCDCpzRn3MQBDbgcuxePOChWVYKDgNPORWnkddxfaZEIhJeeP6dJ8SH YcDuByLNhtvkO7ZBO7Vfa3K5hk/kVuoYdumeeYUQGDVAIU9JwcY0GDiAyaicHcCARLWr bxLA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlBMeIj0k6pg3qxgIQHrY4NPKLUdHps+L8sLgnn142guO/zcBVHWSuOW6TJ37XiPfIeSmNj
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.102.134 with SMTP id fo6mr798875obb.10.1393327405420; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 03:23:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.60.55.197 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 03:23:25 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <D9526944-8CD1-462D-AEE2-87E54A4D8DF7@nostrum.com>
References: <D9526944-8CD1-462D-AEE2-87E54A4D8DF7@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 11:23:25 +0000
Message-ID: <CAKHUCzxSmYtMvmVU-h04=kcCAeMASsZQ9hed20TpA9oJASnu4A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0149c3800e65b404f33951d4"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/xmpp/eIqd2YRIDOG85ua8bV_ArdlBfg8
Cc: XMPP Working Group <xmpp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [xmpp] End-to-End Encryption Milestone
X-BeenThere: xmpp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: XMPP Working Group <xmpp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/xmpp>, <mailto:xmpp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/xmpp/>
List-Post: <mailto:xmpp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xmpp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp>, <mailto:xmpp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 11:23:28 -0000

In a fit of being rubbish, I exchanged a couple of messages with Ben
directly before realising I'd not copied the list.

The first said:

I'd like to get OTR usage in XMPP documented, but I think that's an
informational document, possibly better done within the XSF.

Ben countered with: Does that mean OTR, after documentation, would be good
enough? Or is there still work for the IETF here?

I responded:

I honestly don't know. I doubt it, but OTR in XMPP is largely a matter of
fiddle-until-it-works. It's not, apparently, entirely straightforward due
to multiple resources, resource "locking", etc. Documenting it in a way
that would be useful to developers would also mean the issues surrounding
this form of encryption were laid bare, and give us some ideas of how to
tackle the problem ourselves.

Doing it within the XSF would *possibly* be simpler in terms of process.


On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:

> (as chair)
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> The XMPP working group has a milestone for "Define a solution for
> end-to-end encryption." We have not seen much activity there of late, and
> it has been suggested that we may need to delete that milestone due to
> insufficient interest and energy.
>
> Who is still interested in contributing effort to complete this milestone?
> That is, in discussion, review, and perhaps even writing drafts?
>
> Who expects to implement and/or deploy such a solution, once we have one?
>
> Are other approaches (e.g. OTR, TLS everywhere, etc) likely to be "good
> enough" that we don't need to do more work?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ben.
> _______________________________________________
> xmpp mailing list
> xmpp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp
>