[OTR-dev] OTR version 4 Draft #2
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