Presence and IntComm WG

[Peter Saint-Andre <>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 8/9/12 2:18 PM, Tim Callahan wrote:
> In short, there are reasons not to trust the outside world, so 
> requirements are given (mandated) on who to trust; some
> requirements are local policy, some are regulatory (HIPAA, etc.) 
> Some sites have identity management concerns, where the foreign
> site needs to meet certain requirements of identity assurance and
> accountability.

Amusingly, most folks federate their email servers by default without
any policy enforcement. Or so it seems from the outside.

> Some sites require encrypted server to server connections.

Yes, that can be difficult (although it's close to impossible for
SMTP, which doesn't seem to stop federated email!).

> It can also be as simple as "this account for business use only"
> I'm sure members of our list can think of many more reasons.
> 
> I thought they were offering encrypted S2S federation, but in
> hindsight, I'm not sure.  They do require encryption for clients
> though.  The link to their IM page
> <http://www.oit.uci.edu/computing/im/> gives more info.

In my experience, it is much easier to offer encrypted
client-to-server. Sadly, not enough servers correctly do encrypted
server-to-server, so the failure rate discourages deployment. It's
really something we need to fix! (There are special challenges with
virtual hosting environments, which we're working on in the IETF's
XMPP WG....)

Peter

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


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAlAkMmkACgkQNL8k5A2w/vyUZgCfVk6Vb3667C1nYonubf6K7/Mz
uVoAnib4aXsmitwS1aKOFx1uPlFziLoe
=h0pF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----