> 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