Re: Thinking about a new decentralized/serverless IM protocol

On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 09:01:21PM +0000, Eduardo Pérez wrote:
> On 2004-12-14 19:28:37 UTC, Luke Schierer wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 07:19:59PM +0000, Eduardo Pérez wrote:
> > > I'm thinking about a new decentralized/serverless IM protocol but
> > > I don't want to reinvent the wheel so I'd like to base it on some
> > > already working IM protocol.
> > > 
> > > The main goal of the protocol would be:
> > > - no centralized user registry
> > 
> > rendezvous, jabber or silc
> 
> I said "no centralized user registry". I don't know about rendezvous or
> silc but jabber has centralized user registry in the server.

Jabber does not have a centralized user registery. it has one reistry 
per server. it has many servers. thus it has many user registries. 
hardly centralized on a server.

> 
> > > - no centralized servers
> > 
> > rendezvous, jabber and to a lesser extent silc (irc model for servers)
> 
> I said "no centralized servers". I don't know about rendezvous, but
> jabber and silc have centralized servers.

also false. see above, jabber uses a many-server model. i _said_ that 
silc "to a lesser extent" precisely because silc uses an irc model. this 
isn't precisely a centralized server, but it isn't the kind of global 
network jabber provides.

> 
> > > - end-to-end cryptography & security
> > 
> > silc.
> 
> I already knew about silc but I have to take a closer look at it.

other than your rather senseless (at least as presented so far) 
objection to a server, silc would be ideal for your needs (as 
presented).

luke


-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. 
http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/