[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: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 19:30:11 -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 19:30:32 -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=hiK07/KFXeruGILyZitPV8/GWOmTiurDkj4XellCR+5FxD9gG85pbroxCevld45NrliyteV26PvmxYXs991Oig5VDcC5bqMWn/Jm9fzdFu6q5bS4N0GLCC6I7znUlxIwZzQ9uSMh+ZsSLaOSI70pIRbgD8EDy+FiKtNPrsgpztQ=
- 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=SMF/evPP/ucITcoVjV6OnVgVbNEKJRc0PQpcUSCjbIj4zvALFdUv+VUV2LwfJxh7mX+R68Wr4Ew+Ui/Y0a4OxqbwianbyFwmHd0bZMevGjiptQ9p+jOJZJ2OMdiuuD2Nn5IFtoiMBfvwGBglJpAUogR3qpu01hXtRbe1e/sQkd0=
- In-reply-to: <20070311232114.GE28282@moria.seul.org>
- Openpgp: url=http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x57C89443
- References: <20070311225534.GD28282@moria.seul.org> <45F48CB9.7090107@gmail.com> <20070311232114.GE28282@moria.seul.org>
- Reply-to: or-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-or-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Macintosh/20061207)
Roger Dingledine wrote:
> 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"?
One that requires fewer round trips by shrinking handshake sizes to the
point where they can be combined.
>
> Also, notice that this is the TLS handshake we're talking about here.
> Not the circuit handshake.
Ok, that makes sense now
>
> --Roger
>
>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature