On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 05:59:16PM -0500, Watson Ladd wrote: > Hello: > 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. (The original [unpublished, I believe] paper that Watson's talking about, which AFAICT has so far only been linked to from or-talk, and is at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 ) cheers, -- Nick Mathewson
Attachment:
pgpJrDMRhnNAT.pgp
Description: PGP signature