On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Sebastian G.
wrote:
[...]
> But I think there is another one.
>
>> 4. Performance impact
>>
>>Routers do not generate new descriptors frequently enough for
>>them to need to
>
> worry about performance for this matter. (?)
Thanks! I've fixed it as:
R
25.02.2014 17:22, Nick Mathewson:
> You _could_ do something weird in the TAP protocol where you .
do something I don't tell you. ;)
(I saw that this one was caught already)
It should be something like this, in case anyone wonders.
> (You _could_ do something weird in the TAP protocol where
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 3:17 AM, grarpamp wrote:
>>that key (since you don't have the private key). You _could_ do
>>something weird in the TAP protocol where you .
>>
>
> Seems an editing/thought dropoff up there, it happens.
Sorry, I do that a lot. It happens because I tend to write t
>that key (since you don't have the private key). You _could_ do
>something weird in the TAP protocol where you .
>
Seems an editing/thought dropoff up there, it happens.
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torpro
Here's a proposal that's been kicking around on my laptop for a while.
I cleaned it up to use the revised certificate format from the revised
proposal 220.
My math and crypto claims might be incorrect here; I'm sure hoping
somebody will tell me if they are.
Filename: 228-cross-certification-oni
