IRC v3

#1

Post by bpierre » Sun, Oct 09, 2016, 1:15 PM UTC

IRC v3
ircv3.net

Re: IRC v3

#2

Post by JshWright » Sun, Oct 09, 2016, 2:19 PM UTC

I am a long time IRC user (irssi is my 'daily driver'), but I'm pretty sure IRCv3 is called "Slack".

Re: IRC v3

#3

Post by vesinisa » Sun, Oct 09, 2016, 2:24 PM UTC

Interesting development. Apart from the original IRC specification published in 1993 and revised in 2000 (supposedly the namesake of "IRC v3") there has been quite little real standardisation work in IRC protocol, with various clients, servers and platforms each implementing their custom extensions.

Re: IRC v3

#4

Post by rwmj » Sun, Oct 09, 2016, 2:25 PM UTC

IRC (current version) works fine for me. The trick is to front it with ZNC or similar software.

Anyway, why isn't this being done through the IETF?

Re: IRC v3

#5

Post by scrollaway » Sun, Oct 09, 2016, 2:26 PM UTC

JshWright wrote: post #2

I am a long time IRC user (irssi is my 'daily driver'), but I'm pretty sure IRCv3 is called "Slack".

God no. Please no.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11300687

Re: IRC v3

#6

Post by vesinisa » Sun, Oct 09, 2016, 2:31 PM UTC

JshWright wrote: post #2

I am a long time IRC user (irssi is my 'daily driver'), but I'm pretty sure IRCv3 is called "Slack".

Hooray for centralised, proprietary tools controlled by a single corporation! /s

Seriously though, I think this is exactly what is needed for IRC: a facelift. IRC is hugely superior to centralised tools like Slack for obvious reasons. But if people are moving to Slack it's not enough to say they should not do that, but try to actually offer a competitive user experience.

Re: IRC v3

#7

Post by wingless » Sun, Oct 09, 2016, 2:36 PM UTC

JshWright wrote: post #2

I am a long time IRC user (irssi is my 'daily driver'), but I'm pretty sure IRCv3 is called "Slack".

Eugh. You could at least choose an open standard like Matrix. http://matrix.org/

Re: IRC v3

#8

Post by nocarrier » Sun, Oct 09, 2016, 2:37 PM UTC

Why isn't encryption baked in by default? It's optional from what I can tell. I don't know how you can design a new protocol and not include encryption.

Re: IRC v3

#9

Post by jbk » Sun, Oct 09, 2016, 2:38 PM UTC

That's a great idea.

Maybe also backport some features of Slack, like edition of messages (with a flag marking it as edited), or a common way to have plugins/extensions, or tagging links as images.

Re: IRC v3

#10

Post by mtgx » Sun, Oct 09, 2016, 2:38 PM UTC

nocarrier wrote: post #8

Why isn't encryption baked in by default? It's optional from what I can tell. I don't know how you can design a new protocol and not include encryption.

Exactly what I wanted to say. Why even bother if encryption is not included by default in the new protocol?