Re: XMPP Compatibility

[Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>]

Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com> writes:
> I think my take on this is somewhere between 2 and 3.  I would say that
> we achieve the best result in this current space if we ensure that
> there is _at_least_one_ mandatory to support message format
> with _at_least_one_ mandatory to support mechanism to ensure
> data integrity and _at_least_one_ mandatory to support mechanism
> for end-to-end encryption.    Supporting more than one message
> format/data integrity mechanism/end-to-end encryption mechanism
> seems very, very likely given the place in history we find ourselves;
> realistically, I think we should accept that and move on.    In the mean
> time, though, I believe that we should expect that any compliant
> IM system should be able to handle  the mandatory-to-support
> message format (no matter whether from some other IM system or
> from a sibling in its own system), that they should be able to check
> the data integrity of that message if it has been assured, and that it
> should be able to handle the encrypted message if the mandatory
> support form has been used and keys or secretes
>   have been appropriately exchanged.
Ted,

I think the question is what message format XMPP and SIMPLE are
going to continue to extend. I understand that there are legacy
formats but I'm quite uncomfortable with the idea that we're going
to be extending three formats into the foreseable future.

-Ekr