> Agreed. However, it could still be useful towards that aim, on a > small-group scale, to have a communications protocol (or suite > thereof) that would be *resistant* to censorship, at least of the > kinds currently common. Most likely, something that would serve as a > carrier for something else -- and be more inconspicuous than IPsec.
IPsec is only conspicuous because it is not used very much. In fact, that was the whole point Phil Zimmerman was making with respect to encryption. You want everybody using encryption for all sorts of things, otherwise the few who use it because they really have something to hide will be "conspicuous." -- Christian Huitema _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
