Re: [tor-dev] Pluggable Transports 2.0 Specification, Draft 2

Hi teor. Thank you for the detailed feedback on the Pluggable Transport 2.0, Draft 2 proposal. Your email covers a number of topics, which I will attempt to address. I have grouped the issues you've raised into some different categories. 1. Issues inherited from the PT 1.0 specification - We

Re: [tor-dev] Pluggable Transports 2.0 Specification, Draft 2

Hi Brandon, There's a bunch of feedback in this thread. Some of it involves relatively minor spec updates or clarifications. Other parts involve solving complex issues, and might belong in another spec (or a future version of the PT spec). Can you let us know which feedback will make it into PT

Re: [tor-dev] Pluggable Transports 2.0 Specification, Draft 2

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 06:20:44AM +, Yawning Angel wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 21:27:35 -0700 > David Fifield wrote: > > Even closely affiliated projects like Orbot haven't been able to use > > pluggable transports strictly according to the spec, because of the > >

Re: [tor-dev] Pluggable Transports 2.0 Specification, Draft 2

> On 21 Jun 2017, at 16:20, Yawning Angel wrote: > > The "2.0" spec still doesn't have any provisions for using AF_LOCAL > instead of the loopback interface, go figure. It's not as if I bring > it up every time this topic comes up or anything right? Th exact types of

Re: [tor-dev] Pluggable Transports 2.0 Specification, Draft 2

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 21:27:35 -0700 David Fifield wrote: > Even closely affiliated projects like Orbot haven't been able to use > pluggable transports strictly according to the spec, because of the > various constraints on mobile platforms. This is basically totally and

Re: [tor-dev] Pluggable Transports 2.0 Specification, Draft 2

> On 21 Jun 2017, at 14:27, David Fifield wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 01:16:20PM +1000, teor wrote: >> In general, is there a separate document or proposal that describes >> how Tor will implement the relevant interfaces? There doesn't seem >> to be much on

Re: [tor-dev] Pluggable Transports 2.0 Specification, Draft 2

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 01:16:20PM +1000, teor wrote: > In general, is there a separate document or proposal that describes > how Tor will implement the relevant interfaces? There doesn't seem > to be much on Tor-specific issues in this spec. > > There is one "Tor" note in the spec, maybe it

Re: [tor-dev] Pluggable Transports 2.0 Specification, Draft 2

Thanks for the feedback. I'll fix this in the next draft. On Jun 20, 2017 6:07 PM, "Yawning Angel" wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 14:07:39 -0400 > Brandon Wiley wrote: > > > Attached is the second draft of the Pluggable Transport 2.0 > > Specification.

Re: [tor-dev] Pluggable Transports 2.0 Specification, Draft 2

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 14:07:39 -0400 Brandon Wiley wrote: > Attached is the second draft of the Pluggable Transport 2.0 > Specification. If you have feedback on this draft, please send me > your comments by July 20. I'll raise this because it bothers me, but maybe the other

Re: [tor-dev] Pluggable Transports 2.0 Specification, Draft 2

Changelog from Draft 1 ● Renamed version flag to ptversion to avoid naming conflict with goptlib ● Modified Go examples to use correct Go syntax ● Renamed pt module in Go examples to base to avoid naming conflict with goptlib ● Reworded introduction ● Clarified Go examples with more details on