> This was touched upon - the point is that XMPP's extensibility means we aren't "stuck at the lowest common denominator".
To echo the sibling comments - with security you are stuck at the lowest common denominator. If anyone in your ecosystem can negotiate down the security (because they don't support it) then the system as a whole is vulnerable. There are UI things you can do to highlight this ("messages to this destination are not secured") but it becomes complex and confusing for users (what happens if you have a group of people with secure features and you add someone without?).
In summary - I can see where Snikket is coming from. It gives a common name to talk about - a new lowest common denominator feature set.
To echo the sibling comments - with security you are stuck at the lowest common denominator. If anyone in your ecosystem can negotiate down the security (because they don't support it) then the system as a whole is vulnerable. There are UI things you can do to highlight this ("messages to this destination are not secured") but it becomes complex and confusing for users (what happens if you have a group of people with secure features and you add someone without?).
In summary - I can see where Snikket is coming from. It gives a common name to talk about - a new lowest common denominator feature set.