Subject: [xmpp] End-to-End Encryption Milestone

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 14:31:58 -0600

(as chair)

Hi Everyone,

The XMPP working group has a milestone for "Define a solution for end-to-end encryption." We have not seen much activity there of late, and it has been suggested that we may need to delete that milestone due to insufficient interest and energy.

Who is still interested in contributing effort to complete this milestone? That is, in discussion, review, and perhaps even writing drafts?

Who expects to implement and/or deploy such a solution, once we have one?

Are other approaches (e.g. OTR, TLS everywhere, etc) likely to be "good enough" that we don't need to do more work?

Thanks!

Ben.

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 21:40:44 +0100

* Ben Campbell wrote:
>The XMPP working group has a milestone for "Define a solution for 
>end-to-end encryption." We have not seen much activity there of late, 
>and it has been suggested that we may need to delete that milestone due 
>to insufficient interest and energy.
>
>Who is still interested in contributing effort to complete this 
>milestone? That is, in discussion, review, and perhaps even writing 
>drafts?
>
>Are other approaches (e.g. OTR, TLS everywhere, etc) likely to be "good 
>enough" that we don't need to do more work?

I intend to review mature specification proposals, and would probably
participate in requirements discussions if needed. It is possilbe that
existing solutions are "good enough" but there are obvious deployment
issues; it might be useful or even sufficient to produce an overview
specification possibly with recommendations. I think it would be use-
ful to send your questions to the `perpass` mailing list, there might
be volunteers there.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email-masked] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 14:51:30 -0600

On Feb 21, 2014, at 2:40 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]> wrote:

>  I think it would be use-

I think that would be a good idea before giving up on the milestone, but I'd like to get a sense of the interest of current working group participants.

---

From: Yusuke DOI <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 10:43:48 +0900

Just a question:

> The XMPP working group has a milestone for "Define a solution for end-to-end encryption." We have not seen much activity there of late, and it has been suggested that we may need to delete that mil…

Does the 'end-to-end encryption' mean something like PGP encryption? I just noticed XEP-0027 is histiorical. Does the WG need different solution?

Also, XML encryption seems to fit if key management issue is solved (but maybe too generic and complex for simple stanza encryption).

http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlenc-core/

Regards,

Yusuke

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 18:49:34 -0700

On 2/23/14, 6:43 PM, Yusuke DOI wrote:
>> and it has been suggested that we may need to delete that milestone
>> due to insufficient interest and energy.
>
> Does the 'end-to-end encryption' mean something like PGP encryption? I
> just noticed XEP-0027 is histiorical. Does the WG need different solution?
>
> Also, XML encryption seems to fit if key management issue is solved (but
> maybe too generic and complex for simple stanza encryption).
>

Dear Yusuke,

There is a *long* history of discussion and work on end-to-end 
encryption approaches. You might read the following:

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-xmpp-e2e-requirements-01.txt

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-saintandre-strint-workshop-xmpp-02#section-4

https://stpeter.im/journal/1241.html

It's quite a sad story, really.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Yusuke DOI <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:13:35 +0900

Dear Peter,

Thanks for the pointers. I agree: the perfect is the enemy of good. Hmm...

Yusuke

(2014-02-24 10:49), Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> There is a *long* history of discussion and work on end-to-end encryption approaches. You might read the following:
>

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 11:23:25 +0000

In a fit of being rubbish, I exchanged a couple of messages with Ben
directly before realising I'd not copied the list.

The first said:

I'd like to get OTR usage in XMPP documented, but I think that's an
informational document, possibly better done within the XSF.

Ben countered with: Does that mean OTR, after documentation, would be good
enough? Or is there still work for the IETF here?

I responded:

I honestly don't know. I doubt it, but OTR in XMPP is largely a matter of
fiddle-until-it-works. It's not, apparently, entirely straightforward due
to multiple resources, resource "locking", etc. Documenting it in a way
that would be useful to developers would also mean the issues surrounding
this form of encryption were laid bare, and give us some ideas of how to
tackle the problem ourselves.

Doing it within the XSF would *possibly* be simpler in terms of process.

On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 8:31 PM, Ben Campbell <[email-masked]> wrote:

> end-to-end encryption." We have not seen much activity there of late, and
> it has been suggested that we may need to delete that milestone due to
> insufficient interest and energy.
>
> Who is still interested in contributing effort to complete this milestone?
> That is, in discussion, review, and perhaps even writing drafts?
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmpp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/xmpp
>

---

From: Tobias Markmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:11:44 +0100

I think what's really needed is some kind of overview/comparison document
about that current status. While the current requirements document is a
start in listing some potential requirements, modern IM use cases are a bit
more complex, w.r.t. multi-device and the mobile application scenarios.

So basically a document that compares existing proposals, like OTR, PGP,
XTLS and maybe even some more general e2e IM security solutions like the
TextSecure protocol or multi-party OTR, and analyze those regarding their
security, support for PubSub/MUC, support for offline messages, support for
multi-device usage, and possibly even more.

> Doing it within the XSF would *possibly* be simpler in terms of process.

Indeed. I don't know if the IETF is the right place for a status quo
comparison document or if it'd be more attractive within the XSF with less
process. I for one would gladly review and try to contribute as much as
possible to such document. Reviewing current proposals and exposing their
advantages and shortcomings, especially regarding multi-resource and
offline usage, would be a great way to start looking for possible solutions
for XMPP.

Cheers,
Tobias

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 13:26:56 +0000

> multi-device usage, and possibly even more.
That sounds really useful. I suspect that:

a) Even quite experienced XMPP developers probably don't know what's on
offer, and what they provide.

b) It'd help focus discussion enormously, by enumerating the requirements
properly.

> offline usage, would be a great way to start looking for possible solutions
A comparison document such as you're suggesting could probably be done as
either; the process overhead isn't important either way. I suspect that
longer term, it'd be nice to maintain it (unless we think we'll find the
Final and Ultimate Solution to Encryption (FUSE), in which case it'll be
only useful as a snapshot.

If we want a "living document", then the XSF affords us that relatively
easily, whereas if we did it as an I-D, I wouldn't press for publication as
an RFC at all. In that sense, it'll be lower process within the IETF.

Dave.