Re: [tor-dev] Revisiting prop224 client authorization

2016-11-02 Thread s7r
teor wrote: > >> On 3 Nov. 2016, at 10:37, s7r wrote: >> >> I am very happy with the torspec patch. >> >> Not quoting entirely, only want to add something wrt randomizing the >> value for fake clients based on David's and teor's comments: >> >> David Goulet wrote: >> [SNIP] >>> >>> - I think "sup

Re: [tor-dev] Revisiting prop224 client authorization

2016-11-02 Thread teor
> On 3 Nov. 2016, at 10:37, s7r wrote: > > I am very happy with the torspec patch. > > Not quoting entirely, only want to add something wrt randomizing the > value for fake clients based on David's and teor's comments: > > David Goulet wrote: > [SNIP] >> >> - I think "superencrypted" -> "supe

Re: [tor-dev] Revisiting prop224 client authorization

2016-11-02 Thread s7r
I am very happy with the torspec patch. Not quoting entirely, only want to add something wrt randomizing the value for fake clients based on David's and teor's comments: David Goulet wrote: [SNIP] > > - I think "superencrypted" -> "super-encrypted" would be nicer as everything > in the descrip

Re: [tor-dev] Revisiting prop224 client authorization

2016-11-02 Thread teor
> On 3 Nov. 2016, at 04:45, David Goulet wrote: > > - I think "superencrypted" -> "super-encrypted" would be nicer as everything > in the descriptor as that separation of word. Or even "client-encrypted" if > we want to add extra semantic. No strong opinion apart from the "-" :). client-encry

Re: [tor-dev] Revisiting prop224 client authorization

2016-11-02 Thread David Goulet
On 01 Nov (13:32:13), George Kadianakis wrote: > David Goulet writes: > > > [ text/plain ] > > On 17 Oct (13:35:24), George Kadianakis wrote: > >> George Kadianakis writes: > >> > >> > [ text/plain ] > >> > Hello, > >> > > >> > we've reached the point in prop224 development where we need to pin