[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: Pairing-Based Onion Routing [was Re: Proposal 107]
- To: or-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: Pairing-Based Onion Routing [was Re: Proposal 107]
- From: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 08:07:57 -0400
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Delivery-date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 08:08:18 -0400
- Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:openpgp:content-type; b=eOV6ekqNbIsVK7fKH1jU1zJ9N6jbRazoNE46onxCVT3VnD57pgMEVjakUnL1xvFycd6aDeqZCRBv1FhUuHu1D3QkpWRoFsk/qEyXb4qcE2Y2dEOs7nRypiUiCiI/kzjx2W5Krm62UagbwQm2csNE4Ysp3etkV2h836w/9z3m+uM=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:openpgp:content-type; b=PfBfVNW/fCRSC8+OjvHX2++JVqVrwOuMzOa67c1eMITtWZDSRSnkbn3+tQcC7GaOTqubpsKzIwozm+WNYTTBSw0KCWxTwpjRHhSnkpPkdJkmGL6zoEbTDbVWQHWrBkTCiDvHbxDn+VB7sMbTPq3DEAXCR+cTa1R+T5O0lAqoeJg=
- In-reply-to: <20070311051504.GJ31057@totoro.wangafu.net>
- Openpgp: url=http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x57C89443
- References: <45F33844.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20070311051504.GJ31057@totoro.wangafu.net>
- Reply-to: or-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-or-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Thunderbird 184.108.40.206 (Macintosh/20061207)
Nick Mathewson wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 05:59:16PM -0500, Watson Ladd wrote:
>> Attached is a new edited and more clear version of the proposal. Still
>> details to be worked out, but fewer remain. Please give some feedback.
>> Unfortunately the formatting is a little too wide.
> Hi, Watson. You're not supposed to number your own proposals; there's
> already a proposal 107. Once the proposal is done being written, it
> gets a number. Till then, just refer to it by name.
> My own initial thoughts are probably going to sound like a broken
> record, given my reaction to the last three or four times you
> suggested that we add an interesting crypto protocol to Tor: I'd be
> far more comfortable if the protocol were more mature -- in this case,
> if it had been published long enough to get attention from more
> people. I have the highest respect for the authors of the paper
> (particular Ian Goldberg, who's on the Tor Project's board of
> directors after all), but we'd be foolhardy to use _any_ approach this
> new without more time for the smart crypto people to look at it.
Good point. I'll shelve this one for a few years then.
> (The original [unpublished, I believe] paper that Watson's talking
> about, which AFAICT has so far only been linked to from or-talk, and
> is at
> http://www.cacr.math.uwaterloo.ca/techreports/2007/cacr2007-08.pdf )
Description: OpenPGP digital signature