<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Wiktor,<br>
</p>
<p>On 10/11/19 7:23 AM, Wiktor Kwapisiewicz wrote:<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3bcd6a50-24d3-f627-e093-2fff66b4da38@metacode.biz">On
09.10.2019 21:58, Patrick Cloke wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">It is unfortunately hard to get a clear
picture of what is worth
<br>
implementing for XMPP
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
XSF publishes Compliance Suites every year that group features
that they consider "worth implementing". See for example:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0412.html">https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0412.html</a>
<br>
<br>
There are also tests run by companies that invest in XMPP heavily:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://compliance.conversations.im/tests/">https://compliance.conversations.im/tests/</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
I hadn't seen this exact compliance test site before. Thanks! I
think it is only half the picture though. If a server implements an
XEP, but no clients do, then it is not necessarily worth
implementing. (There's also the aspect of trying to understand what
clients are popular, I haven't looked into this for XMPP in a very
long time though.)<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3bcd6a50-24d3-f627-e093-2fff66b4da38@metacode.biz">
<blockquote type="cite">(i.e. how many users exist that support
different end-to-end encryption technologies).
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
That's not the impression I got from XSF mailing lists. There are
three groups of E2E technologies within XMPP: legacy (OTR and old
OpenPGP), recommended (OMEMO and new OMEMO) and there is also MLS
that some XSF council members believe will replace OMEMO long-term
but the spec is not ready.
<br>
<br>
Currently OMEMO is widely implemented, see: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://omemo.top/">https://omemo.top/</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
I should probably join the XSF mailing list... the thing missing
from that site is some understanding of how popular each of those
clients are. (What percentage of the user population supports it,
not what percentage of clients do.) Anyway, I'm not against
supporting OMEMO, but supporting OTR was a good baseline since it
helps all the protocols implemented in Thunderbird, and a bunch of
the work had already been done a few years ago. Kai and Alex
finished integrating it.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3bcd6a50-24d3-f627-e093-2fff66b4da38@metacode.biz">
OTR, as the wiki page indicates, is used in either legacy clients
where multiprotocol support is necessary. (There is also OTRv4 in
development supported by one client that showcases it:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://coy.im">https://coy.im</a> ).
<br>
</blockquote>
I've seen the OTRv4 stuff, a bit, but haven't been plugged into
whether clients really plan to implement it or not. My understanding
is that it is very incompatible with OTRv3, which is unfortunate
from a technical standpoint.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3bcd6a50-24d3-f627-e093-2fff66b4da38@metacode.biz">
<blockquote type="cite">The major downside, in my
understanding, is that OTR does not support multi-user chats.
I'm sure
<br>
there are some others, but OTR seemed like a good place to
start.
<br>
<br>
There's a bug [1] about implementing OMEMO for anyone who is
interested!
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Thanks for the reference!
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>No problem. I think it'd be good to have multiple options here.
Hopefully the other users you're talking to have at least one that
overlaps! I'm unsure how hard it would be to incorporate OMEMO,
but I'd be willing to help guide someone who is interested.</p>
<p>Last thing I'll say is that if there are specific XMPP features
that are missing from Thunderbird <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Chat+Core&component=XMPP">please
start by filing a bug</a> (probably a bug per XEP / feature).
Unfortunately most of my use of XMPP is via GTalk [1] which has a
pretty terrible feature set.<br>
</p>
<p>--Patrick</p>
<p>[1] Yes, it still works.<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>