You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Feb 7, 2020. It is now read-only.
If yes, this file should be updated (or replaced by a redirect to the newer spec).
If no, the spec should be finished immediately, so it can be implemented by 3rd party software, too.
What do you think?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
RokerHRO
changed the title
Update spec? Or is the one from 2015-08-01 the newest one?
Update spec? Or is the version from 2015-08-01 the newest one?
Dec 4, 2017
The over 2 years old draft looks more a rough collection of goals or ideas to me, and not a specification, yet.
So, sure, I can add my own ideas into that draft, but I think it would be far better when someone who knows the original plans / ideas / goals, how "Memory Hole" (I don't like that name, though) shall work, write them down.
My suggestions so far:
"introduction" should contain a "motivation" part, so an impatient reader knows what this document is about. (perhaps the same what is in your "abstract" paragraph above?)
Than I'd continue with some examples, which header lines shall be encrypted, signed, signed & encrypted etc.
After that the formal format description might follow
a section about compatibility with non-MemoryHole clients, transition paths etc.
suggestions how MemoryHole-enabled MUAs should create/display/check MemoryHole & legacy headers
Perhaps if there is an EBNF grammar or the like it could also moved into an appendix.
That's all from me, for now. 🙂
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
The spect at https://github.com/autocrypt/memoryhole/blob/master/specs/draft-memoryhole.md is incomplete, yet. Is there another, newer, more complete draft / spec somewhere?
If yes, this file should be updated (or replaced by a redirect to the newer spec).
If no, the spec should be finished immediately, so it can be implemented by 3rd party software, too.
What do you think?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: