On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 11:57:48 +, David Fifield wrote:
> I have to admit that I don't fully understand the apparent enthusiasm
> for encrypted SNI from groups that formerly were not excited about
> domain fronting.
It's simply wrong to use different names in SNI and the host header. :-)
>
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 20:23:58 +, David Fifield wrote:
...
> "encrypted SNI" part. But it's possible to do better: if you're willing
> to abandon HTTP/1.1 compatibility and require HTTP/2, you can use the
> "server push" feature to implement a serialization that's much more
> efficient than the
On 28/09/2018 02:40, Nick Mathewson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 9:26 AM Michael Rogers
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The Briar team is working on a way for users to add each other as
>> contacts by exchanging links without having to meet in person.
>>
>> We don't want to include the address
Hi Chad,
On 27/09/2018 20:02, Chad Retz wrote:
> I am no expert here, but I'm confused by "the client connecting to the
> service knows the service's private key". Why not just create an onion
> service (per contact) and then use the client authentication feature
> to ensure they share the same
