> Doesn't it? Not to challenge the authority, but I believe the only requirements OTR impose are constraints on the initial presence (thus, lack of offline operation) and constraints on message ordering.
It's an asynchronous world, trying to use a synchronous protocol in that world doesn't make a lot of sense. If you want to initiate an OTR session with your friend on an iPhone, you have to wait for them to pull the device out of their pocket and physically tap the notification (which just says something like 'you might get a message soon'), then receive the response (which might involve pulling the device out of your pocket and physically tapping the notification which says something like 'you can send a message now'), before you can send the actual message.
This isn't just "initial presence," either. OTR is a three-step ratchet, so if you want the benefits of forward secrecy, you have to "end" your OTR session after each conversation and "start" an OTR session at the beginning of the next one. Except we don't live in a world where there are "beginnings" and "endings" anymore. People aren't sitting down at their computers and chatting until they get up again, it's just one long asynchronous conversation now.
> I guess, it's a wrong sort of ubiquity, probably not something that works for the goal of "encryption for everyone", but it still works if I don't want to hop the services but layer security instead. Maybe that's too old-fashioned. Hope there will be Signal Protocol-based addons/libraries like this one day.
You can do this today if you want to, but what's the point when Signal Protocol is being baked into the messaging services themselves. Layering encryption has been a losing strategy for a decade or more now, building something that works so seamlessly that it can be a part of the default experience is actually showing progress.