Hi George, Maybe I'm missing something from the discussions that happened eight months ago at the dev meeting. (as per the initial comment in [1]) However, I guess I'm a bit confused about the motivation.
Just to be clear, the goal is to be able to combine multiple transports easily, right? For example, we may want a transport that has the DPI-resistance of obfsproxy, but the address diversity of flashproxy. My main concern is that a general composition framework is going to add uneeded complexity to the interface between Tor and the pluggable transports. I understand the long-term benefits to being able to compose pluggable transports, but my concern is that it won't work well in practice, will be a nightmare to manage/deploy/develop, and will have irreconcilable performance bottlenecks. I think pluggable transport composition will be a good topic to discuss at the PT standup on Friday. To get my head around the current design, it would be great if we could discuss a few use cases beyond obfsproxy+flashproxy. -Kevin [1] https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/7167 On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 3:43 AM, George Kadianakis <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Kevin, > > If you are interested in learning more about the transport combiner > idea we were recently discussing, check out trac tickets #10061, #9744 > and #7167. > > It would be awesome if you could comment with any ideas or criticisms > you have. > > Cheers! _______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
