> On Apr 28, 2017, at 9:52 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Fri 2017-04-28 08:57:39 -0700, Joe Touch wrote: >>> -- existing HTTPS isn't going to move to a new port, which means >>> traffic on that port would be suspect to a would-be censor or a >>> pervasive monitor, right? >> >> All traffic on the Internet is already subject to censorship and >> monitoring. I can't see how you can traverse someone else's link or >> router without that possibility, regardless of port. > > To clarify any miscommunication, i said *suspect* (in the sense of > "suspicious"), not *subject*.
Sorry - misread that. Yes, new ports and new services are often treated as suspect. That's partly true (they could be) but partly bad (forcing us to use only what we already have). > One of the aims of the draft is to make > the two protocols less distinguishable from one another to a network > attacker who might prefer one over the other (and consider the other to > be suspicious). A new port assignment fails to meet that goal. But using any existing ports for new behaviors is simply not your right. ... > Your points are noted, thanks, and i'll branch the discussion and start > talking with the HTTP folks soon. Ok. I really don't care if they allow this, but they need to allow this. Joe _______________________________________________ dns-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dns-privacy
