Hi Brandon, There's a bunch of feedback in this thread. Some of it involves relatively minor spec updates or clarifications. Other parts involve solving complex issues, and might belong in another spec (or a future version of the PT spec). Can you let us know which feedback will make it into PT 2.0? Thanks Tim > On 21 Jun 2017, at 23:00, teor <teor2345@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 21 Jun 2017, at 16:20, Yawning Angel <yawning@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> The "2.0" spec still doesn't have any provisions for using AF_LOCAL >> instead of the loopback interface, go figure. It's not as if I bring >> it up every time this topic comes up or anything right? > > Th exact types of addr and port are not specified, so application > could pass: > unix:/var/run/tor/obfsocket > And still remain within the spec. > > But to make this usage clear, I suggest we change: > <addr:port> > To: > <addr>[:<port>] > And define addr as either an IPv4, IPv6, hostname, file path, or some > other address understood by the application / proxy. > > If we don't want to do that, please at least change it to: > <addr>:<port> T -- Tim Wilson-Brown (teor) teor2345 at gmail dot com PGP C855 6CED 5D90 A0C5 29F6 4D43 450C BA7F 968F 094B ricochet:ekmygaiu4rzgsk6n xmpp: teor at torproject dot org ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev