[OTR-dev] mpOTR and the road ahead ...?

[Guy K. Kloss]

On 23/01/14 02:55, Ximin Luo wrote:
> I agree it's important to be clear what properties you are looking for
> in a system, so that people with different systems in mind can build them
> separately without coming into unnecessary conflict.

Yes, maybe we have to define some "axes" of properties, to segment the
problem "hypercube" into more distinct areas that can be worked on. And
certain solutions might work for multiple quadrants/octants/hyper-octants.

These are the ones I can see off the bat:

* asynchronisity
* group size
* level of repudiation
* flexibility to policy-based requirements

Originating this effort on the back of the existing OTR, I guess
asynchronisity is orthogonal to the problem of multi-party/group
communication. No offence ... but therefore I think potentially
asynchronisity may/should need to be viewed separately, if it does cause
(as it seems) a more major headache in protocol development.

> I agree, policy is a large part of it and some of us made this point too; I
> hope it's been preserved in the pad. For example, one option for expiry:

I've had the feeling that these discussion points were the major ones
raised in the last RWC day's pad (that I know of).

Guy

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.cypherpunks.ca/pipermail/otr-dev/attachments/20140123/f971e50a/attachment.pgp>