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

Re: Proposal 105 (handshake revision) needs more thought

can you please remove me from the list.
 
jerry
 
geraldtorello@xxxxxxxxx

Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
>
>





Thank you,
Gerald Torello

"There are no short cuts to anywhere worth going"
-Unknown

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This E-Mail,Letter,Telecopy Transmission, or Facsimile and any attachments contain confidential information, belonging to the sender that is legally privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. The authorized recipient of this information is prohibited from disclosing this information to any other party and is required to destroy or permanently delete after its stated need has been fulfilled. It's contents aren't to be used in any legal proceedings without written consent. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, letter, or facsimile please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, purge it and do not disseminate or copy it.Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient is not a waiver of any attorney-client, physician-patient or any and all other privileges and is not to be shared.

Finding fabulous fares is fun.
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains.