[OTR-dev] OTR version 4 Draft #2

Greg Troxel gdt at lexort.com
Tue May 8 17:57:50 EDT 2018

Ian Goldberg <ian at cypherpunks.ca> writes:

> On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 02:48:12PM -0400, Jurre van Bergen wrote:
>> I think once OTRv4 is out of the door, just like OTRv1, OTRv2 should be
>> dropped. @ian? @nik?
> I'm in principle fine with dropping v2 support.  I wouldn't mind a quick
> look-around at what OTR implementations still don't support v3, though.
> pidgin-otr does, of course.  What about Adium?  Others?

By dropping support, is this about removing it from libotr?   I am not
quite following standard vs reference implementation vs ?

As a user, a few semi-related semi-OT things come to mind:

  I had perceived Adium to be no longer a viable project.  But I see
  that it has a stable release that's new enough, but the unstable
  channel is multiple years old.  The trac has an expired certificate.
  So I wonder if Adium is still viable.

  With pidgin and adium, I have had lost OTR messages, apparently from
  one side using keys the other side has lost due to restart.  I hope v4
  has systematic mitigation for this.

  Conversations has dropped OTR support, leaving OMEMO.  I am unclear on
  the relative merits of OMEMO and OTR, but I've been an OTR user for a
  really long time (<= 2005), so I have a pro-OTR cultural bias and
  would like to see it succeed.  I wonder if anyone for otr-land has
  engaged Conversations about this.

More information about the OTR-dev mailing list