Re: [tor-dev] Towards a new version of the PT spec...

[Tim Wilson-Brown - teor <teor2345@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 8 Sep 2015, at 08:45, Yawning Angel <yawning@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

So, we currently have a Pluggable Transport (PT) spec, and it kind-of
sort-of works (The documentation is a mess that I'm working on
cleaning up, but it's an orthogonal issue for how well it works).

There are a number of problems with the current PT spec that require
breaking backward compatibility to fix, so eventually I would like to
do so.

I'm soliciting input on what people would also like to see in a
(currently hypothetical) PT spec 2.0 beyond what I already have in mind:

...

UNLIKELY:
 * Specify an interface for where fork()/exec() isn't possible (iOS).
   I don't think this is makes sense because it is probably too
   platform/caller specific.

I imagine that this would require a PT-as-thread(s) interface, which is out of scope, as iOS is a single platform.

It seems to me that using a PT on iOS could be done in a similar way to using tor.

(That is, if you canât fork tor from an iOS app, then forking PTs is the least of your worries.)

Iâm hoping someone has developed a generic way of doing this, at least for network apps.

What are the ChatSecure people doing for their XMMP + Tor chat accounts?

Launching pthreads?

Tim (teor)

Tim Wilson-Brown (teor)

teor2345 at gmail dot com
PGP: 968F094B (ABFED1AC & A39A9058 expire 15 Sep 2015)

teor at blah dot im
OTR CAD08081 9755866D 89E2A06F E3558B7F B5A9D14F (From 1 Sep 2015)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

_______________________________________________
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev