On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 17:53, Robert Ransom <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not going to follow that link.
… yet you're going to comment anyway, based merely on your imagination of what it contains? O.o > (Tor specification-change > proposals are sent to the tor-dev mailing list in their entirety and > copied into a Git repository for archival, not left on an > easily-changed web page.) Yeah: that's the point. This is a proposal, not a full implementation let alone a final one. It's going to be edited. > We would like a naming system which provides *memorable* names, if > that is possible. (I've never seen a distributed naming system which > provides secure and memorable names.) "I've never seen" isn't really a statement about my proposal. > But we care even more about other usability properties of a naming > system, such as how easily users can type a name given a copy of it on > paper, how easily users can transfer a name to a friend over the > telephone, and how easily users can compare two names maliciously > crafted by an attacker with plausible computational power to be > similar (whether in written form or in spoken form). All agreed there. >> choice of name (though it has the required *canonicality* of names), > > By proposing to add a new naming system for Tor's existing hidden > service protocol, you are already assuming and claiming that hidden > service names do not need to be canonical. Why do you think > ‘canonicality’ is required? … you just contradicted yourself within two sentences. Canonicality is mandatory for domain names of all kinds; otherwise there's no way to advertise them, transfer references to them between users, etc. If your name for some service only works for you, it's not very useful. >> and has a somewhat absurdist definition of 'meaningful'. :-P > > Then your system's names are unlikely to be memorable. Not true. Consider that e.g. mnemonics used in med school *all* consist of absurdist phrases. It would be more memorable if it's short and operator-specified, but for that you need a petname system, which this is not. > The dictionaries required by a dictionary-based naming system strongly > influence whether the resulting names will be memorable. Yes, of course. So will using good syntax generation. > The usability tests which will prove that your scheme does not provide > sufficient usability benefit to justify shipping many large > dictionaries with Tor cannot begin until after you have collected the > dictionaries. a) who said it requires 'many large dictionaries'? b) I said upfront that the point of asking for comments is to make sure the dictionaries collected are good a priori. Your challenging my proposal by saying that we need dictionaries before testing — which is obvious; you can't implement this scheme without dictionaries — seems pointlessly combative to me. I suggest you try actually reading proposals before bitching about them. We addressed most of the issues you mention in the proposal. - Sai _______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
