Paul HittandClaude Opus 5
06b97ca69b
Android does not exist, and the first thing it needs is not a screen. It needs the protocol implemented a third time — which is only worth anything if the third implementation is checked against the spec and the published vectors rather than against a reading of our own Swift. So `android/engine` is a plain Kotlin/JVM library with no Android in it: no SDK, no emulator, no device, and therefore gateable in CI on Linux like everything else. It reads engine/test/vectors/protocol-v1.json from its one location rather than carrying a copy, because a vector transcribed into the test that checks it is a vector that agrees with itself. Covered so far: safety numbers (§7) and key transparency verification (§19) — RFC 6962 leaf and node hashing, the unbalanced split, and bottom-up audit paths. Nine tests, all green against the same file the JavaScript and Swift engines answer to. The §19 tests are the ones worth having. A top-down reading of a bottom-up audit path yields the correct root for every left-spine index, so it passes any suite that only checks index 0 — the vectors pin a right-descending index, and the tests assert both that the published path verifies and that the same path reversed does not. android/README.md lists what is missing — X25519, X3DH, the ratchet, sealed sender, both post-quantum halves, the relay client, the app — as a table rather than as an omission. Android stays honestly marked "not started" on the site until that list is shorter. Bytecode targets 17 without demanding a JDK 17 be installed: a jvmToolchain(17) fails on any newer JDK, which is a poor trade for a library with no JDK 17-specific behaviour. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2.6 KiB
Flamenet Messenger — Android
Nothing here is an app yet. This is the engine, and it is deliberately first.
An Android client needs the protocol implemented a third time. That third
implementation is the one that finds the places where the specification says
less than the two existing engines quietly agreed on — but only if it is
written against the spec and the published vectors rather than against a
reading of our own Swift and JavaScript. So the engine comes first, it is a
plain Kotlin/JVM library with no Android in it at all, and it is held to
engine/test/vectors/protocol-v1.json — the same file the other two engines
are checked against, read from that one location rather than copied here.
./gradlew :engine:test
No Android SDK, no emulator, no device. It runs anywhere a JVM does, which is also what lets it run in CI on Linux.
What the engine covers today
| Area | Spec | State |
|---|---|---|
| Safety numbers | §7 | Done — fingerprints and conversation ordering match the published vectors |
| Key transparency verification | §19 | Done — RFC 6962 leaf/node hashing, unbalanced split, bottom-up audit paths |
| Byte helpers | — | Unsigned comparison, constant-time equality |
What it does not cover
Listed rather than left to be discovered, because a table of green ticks with the hard parts quietly missing is worse than no table:
| Area | Spec | State |
|---|---|---|
| X25519 / Ed25519 | §3 | Not started — needs a provider that works on both JVM and Android |
| X3DH key agreement | §4 | Not started |
| Double Ratchet | §6 | Not started |
| Sealed sender | §12 | Not started |
| ML-KEM-768 hybrid | §11 | Not started |
| ML-DSA-65 identities | §20 | Not started |
| Relay client | §8 | Not started |
| The app itself | — | Not started |
Until those exist, Android is honestly marked "not started" on the website, and a conversation gets the protocol's guarantees only when both ends are iOS.
Why the vectors matter more than the code
Two implementations that agree may both be wrong in the same way, especially when one was written while reading the other. The audit-path ordering in §19 is the worked example: a top-down reading of a bottom-up path produces the correct root for every left-spine index, so it passes any test that only checks index 0. The vector file pins a right-descending index for that reason, and the Kotlin tests assert both that the published path verifies and that the same path reversed does not.
If this engine ever disagrees with the file, the interesting question is which of the three is wrong — not this one by default.