>
> Actually, we should have a simple format like "ed25519:" instead
> so then in 5 years, if we end up with 10 different authorization method, we
> can just pass "key:value" argument at will to the torrc option.
>
To be better, I prefer "ed25519:private:"
>>
>> Some more things to do:
>> - Re
On 12 Jul (20:24:54), George Kadianakis wrote:
> David Goulet writes:
>
> > On 18 May (19:03:09), George Kadianakis wrote:
> >> Ian Goldberg writes:
> >>
> >> > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:20:05AM +0700, Suphanat Chunhapanya wrote:
> >> >> On 05/09/2018 03:50 PM, George Kadianakis wrote:
> >> >>
David Goulet writes:
> On 18 May (19:03:09), George Kadianakis wrote:
>> Ian Goldberg writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:20:05AM +0700, Suphanat Chunhapanya wrote:
>> >> On 05/09/2018 03:50 PM, George Kadianakis wrote:
>> >> > b) We might also want to look into XEdDSA and see if we can
On 18 May (19:03:09), George Kadianakis wrote:
> Ian Goldberg writes:
>
> > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:20:05AM +0700, Suphanat Chunhapanya wrote:
> >> On 05/09/2018 03:50 PM, George Kadianakis wrote:
> >> > b) We might also want to look into XEdDSA and see if we can potentially
> >> >use the
Ian Goldberg writes:
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:20:05AM +0700, Suphanat Chunhapanya wrote:
>> On 05/09/2018 03:50 PM, George Kadianakis wrote:
>> > b) We might also want to look into XEdDSA and see if we can potentially
>> >use the same keypair for both intro auth (ed25519) and desc auth
>>
On 05/14/2018 05:26 PM, George Kadianakis wrote:
> Suphanat Chunhapanya writes:
>
>> On 05/09/2018 03:50 PM, George Kadianakis wrote:
>>> I thought about this some more and discussed it with haxxpop on IRC. In
>>> the end, I think that perhaps starting with just desc auth and then in
>>> the fu
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:20:05AM +0700, Suphanat Chunhapanya wrote:
> On 05/09/2018 03:50 PM, George Kadianakis wrote:
> > b) We might also want to look into XEdDSA and see if we can potentially
> >use the same keypair for both intro auth (ed25519) and desc auth
> (x25519).
>
> This will be
Suphanat Chunhapanya writes:
> On 05/09/2018 03:50 PM, George Kadianakis wrote:
>> I thought about this some more and discussed it with haxxpop on IRC. In
>> the end, I think that perhaps starting with just desc auth and then in
>> the future implementing intro auth is also an acceptable plan for
On 05/09/2018 03:50 PM, George Kadianakis wrote:
> I thought about this some more and discussed it with haxxpop on IRC. In
> the end, I think that perhaps starting with just desc auth and then in
> the future implementing intro auth is also an acceptable plan forward.
I think we have two more th
George Kadianakis writes:
> Suphanat Chunhapanya writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 04/28/2018 06:19 AM, teor wrote:
Or should we require the service to enable both for all clients?
If you want to let the service be able to enable one while disable the
other, do you have any opinion o
> On 3 May 2018, at 02:09, George Kadianakis wrote:
>
> I think my approach here would be to try to support both auth types by
> the time we launch this feature (under the "standard" auth type), and
> then in the future as we get more insight on how people use them, we
> should start allowing to
Suphanat Chunhapanya writes:
> Hi,
>
> On 04/28/2018 06:19 AM, teor wrote:
>>> Or should we require the service to enable both for all clients?
>>>
>>> If you want to let the service be able to enable one while disable the
>>> other, do you have any opinion on how to configure the torrc?
>>
>> I
Hi,
On 04/28/2018 03:59 AM, meejah wrote:
> Then, if the service client has a problem later they have
> to remember NOT copy-paste the whole config when asking for
> help... sounds like lots to go wrong :) and I don't think this can be
> solved by tinkering with the names/layout of torrc options,
Hi,
On 04/28/2018 06:19 AM, teor wrote:
>> Or should we require the service to enable both for all clients?
>>
>> If you want to let the service be able to enable one while disable the
>> other, do you have any opinion on how to configure the torrc?
>
> If someone doesn't understand client auth i
Hi,
> On 28 Apr 2018, at 06:59, meejah wrote:
>
> After reading the spec diff and your mail, I'm still not sure I
> understand the distinction -- if the x25519 is used to decrypt the
> descriptor then:
>
>> The spec says that the client must have both keys and use both to
>> authenticate, but,
Suphanat Chunhapanya writes:
After reading the spec diff and your mail, I'm still not sure I
understand the distinction -- if the x25519 is used to decrypt the
descriptor then:
> The spec says that the client must have both keys and use both to
> authenticate, but, for me, these two things are q
16 matches
Mail list logo
