[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: Proposal 105 (handshake revision) needs more thought

To: or-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Proposal 105 (handshake revision) needs more thought
From: Roger Dingledine <arma@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 19:21:14 -0400
Delivered-to: archiver@seul.org
Delivered-to: or-dev-outgoing@seul.org
Delivered-to: or-dev@seul.org
Delivery-date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 19:21:23 -0400
In-reply-to: <45F48CB9.7090107@gmail.com>
References: <20070311225534.GD28282@moria.seul.org> <45F48CB9.7090107@gmail.com>
Reply-to: or-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-or-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.9i

On Sun, Mar 11, 2007 at 07:11:53PM -0400, Watson Ladd wrote:
> > http://tor.eff.org/svn/trunk/doc/spec/proposals/105-handshake-revision.txt
> Won't the use of a VERSION cell prevent the use of a low-latency
> protocol since we will be waiting for the VERSION cell before going
> forwards with the handshake?

What the heck is a "low-latency protocol"?

Also, notice that this is the TLS handshake we're talking about here.
Not the circuit handshake.

--Roger

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Proposal 105 (handshake revision) needs more thought
  - From: Watson Ladd

References:
- Proposal 105 (handshake revision) needs more thought
  - From: Roger Dingledine
- Re: Proposal 105 (handshake revision) needs more thought
  - From: Watson Ladd

Prev by Author: Proposal 105 (handshake revision) needs more thought
Next by Author: Re: Plan for proposal 104 (was: New system for modifying Tor protocol)
Previous by thread: Re: Proposal 105 (handshake revision) needs more thought
Next by thread: Re: Proposal 105 (handshake revision) needs more thought
Index(es):
- Author
- Thread