Protocol name

Fragment of a discussion from Talk:MpOTR/Overview

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, 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 and the belle province :) just a suggestion.

Vmon (talk)23:32, 2 August 2014

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 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.

Vmon (talk)20:43, 29 September 2014


Dmitri (talk)14:14, 30 September 2014