Thread history
From Talk:MpOTR/Overview
Viewing a history listing
Viewing a history listing
 Time |
User | Activity | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| 17:10, 31 July 2014 | Dmitri (Talk | contribs) | New thread created | |
| 15:42, 2 August 2014 | Infinity0 (Talk | contribs) | New reply created | (Reply to Protocol name) |
| 23:32, 2 August 2014 | Vmon (Talk | contribs) | New reply created | (Reply to Protocol name) |
| 23:32, 2 August 2014 | Vmon (Talk | contribs) | Comment text edited | |
| 02:17, 4 August 2014 | Dmitri (Talk | contribs) | New reply created (since deleted) | (Reply to Protocol name) |
| 02:25, 4 August 2014 | Vitaliev (Talk | contribs) | New reply created (since deleted) | (Reply to Protocol name) |
| 02:53, 4 August 2014 | Dmitri (Talk | contribs) | Deleted | (content was: "testing mail") |
| 02:53, 4 August 2014 | Dmitri (Talk | contribs) | Deleted | (content was: "Testing mail 2" ) |
| 20:35, 29 September 2014 | Vmon (Talk | contribs) | Comment text edited | |
| 20:43, 29 September 2014 | Vmon (Talk | contribs) | New reply created | (Reply to Protocol name) |
| 14:14, 30 September 2014 | Dmitri (Talk | contribs) | New reply created | (Reply to Protocol name) |
I'm hesitant about "mpOTR". 2-party OTR works well on IRC, even though messages may be dropped. But in the group setting, in order to ensure transcript consistency, you basically require reliability which IRC does not do. So the current proposal can only work for XMPP.
OTR doesn't do transparent consistency, that's why it works well on IRC :) The original mpOTR proposal consistency check also fails on IRC pretty often so that's why I think there is no harm calling it mpOTR. Beside OTR for "off the record", the important features are deniability and confidentiality (strengthen with forward secrecy) and consistency check isn't even part of the OTR concept (probably that's why it wasn't a concern in the OTR protocol).
I'm don't like mpChat, has nothing to do with confidentiality etc.
I think now that Cryptocat isn't directly under umbrella of eQualit.ie, it isn't relevant enough. Beside people has raised concern about the name and considering the situation isn't
Because we are following all requirements of the original OTR, I think it is fair to use OTR string in the name. Maybe something like what Trevor suggested makes more sense to avoid confusion from the original mpOTR paper. What about mqOTR, it is a sequel to mpOTR and has the Q from eQualit.ie and the belle province :) just a suggestion.
OK, now that we were barred from using OTR accronym, my new suggestion is mpSeQ, motivation:
1. so sound mpSec for multiparty secure (messaging). I believe we are doing more than just being off the record (authentication, consistency, etc). Being provably deniable is just another security aspect of the protocol. 2. eQ for equalit.ie. 3. It might be used for more than instant messaging, so more like multiparty communication or collaboration. So "messaging" part is less crucial to appear in the name.
