https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements/
is a currently proposed use-cases and requirements that browser vendor
would likely to conform,
since it's a draft FBox could propose all what's needed
on http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/
the conversati
> But i never heard of any "opensouce" peer 2 peer projects . anyone else ?
besides WebRTC, you mean?
looking at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/search/?search_submit=&activeDrafts=on&rfcs=on&name=rtc&sortBy=date
this RTC would be the most documented, easily deploy-able and could be
advanced in
On Jul 18, 2011, at 12:01 PM, ya knygar wrote:
But i never heard of any "opensouce" peer 2 peer projects . anyone
else ?
besides WebRTC, you mean?
yes, i know what drafts are :)
i talk about implementations and working code (C, C# or C++, ) and
NOT a browser :)
cheers
-- Les e
Sorry , i would not adress this to the list if this would happen just
once,
But Its happens several times a week, first i used a .tk domain to
set my facebook account
and now its my project site with an .org domain , this domain dont
even have a mail account.
when i click on "lookup" and
We mentionned GNU Telephony for p2p secure VOIP
http://www.gnutelephony.org, it's in Debian now thanks to Jonas.
bert.
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 12:07:08PM +0200, Marc Manthey wrote:
>
> On Jul 18, 2011, at 12:01 PM, ya knygar wrote:
>
> >>But i never heard of any "opensouce" peer 2 peer project
On Jul 18, 2011, at 12:30 PM, berta...@ptitcanardnoir.org wrote:
We mentionned GNU Telephony for p2p secure VOIP
http://www.gnutelephony.org, it's in Debian now thanks to Jonas.
bert.
ah thanks bert, interesting
http://mumble.sourceforge.net came to my mind while you send the
link :)
not being funny or anything folks but the timescales for getting this
software running needs to be stepped up. including as i've repeatedly
mentioned on-list (and have received no response regarding the avenues
which can be explored and the pre-existing software and collaborations
already underway
+1
useful pad - http://dns-p2p.openpad.me/1?
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
wrote:
> not being funny or anything folks but the timescales for getting this
> software running needs to be stepped up. including as i've repeatedly
> mentioned on-list (and have recei
> 550-Blacklisted URL in message. (o p e ncu.org)
It seems to be saying your message was
Blacklisted because it links http://openCU.org
___
Freedombox-discuss mailing list
Freedombox-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-
oh, I see, the extra spaces causes the link to become ncu.org
___
Freedombox-discuss mailing list
Freedombox-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
El 15/07/11 08:37, Isaac Wilder dijo:
>
> I'm definitely going to write more in response to this in a bit, but I
> just wanted to give you a heads up to two documents that were produced
> by the Free Network Movement over the course of the last year:
> The first is what we call the Free Network Ma
> useful pad - http://dns-p2p.openpad.me/1?
Apparently it doesn't qualify on privacy grounds. When I try to
access that page, it insists that I turn on cookies in the browser.
(And of course it's running on an unencrypted http connection.)
John
__
On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 12:19 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> a non-centralised non-attackable truly peer-to-peer
> replacement for the existing DNS infrastructure.
Is this something the FreedomBox Debian project or the FreedomBox
Foundation have committed to producing?
Such a replace
On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 16:14:37 -0400, Ted Smith wrote:
Non-text part: multipart/mixed
Non-text part: multipart/signed
> On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 12:19 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> > a non-centralised non-attackable truly peer-to-peer
> > replacement for the existing DNS infrastructure.
On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 17:13 -0400, James Vasile wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 16:14:37 -0400, Ted Smith wrote:
> Non-text part: multipart/mixed
> Non-text part: multipart/signed
> > On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 12:19 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> > > a non-centralised non-attackable truly p
i'll not mention the possible need for ERP again:)
what i know - there are, definitely, a lot of existing projects in various
states, i think - making from what's already in Debian reps is controversial
desicion, however - why not if world needs FBox v.0 really soon.
PS: i think - so many usefu
This looks like an interesting technology, and relevant to
some of the Box goals:
https://telex.cc/
___
Freedombox-discuss mailing list
Freedombox-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
Hi Ted,
I am expressing my personal opinion and do not speak for FBF.
>
> I think that the mistake being made most on this mailing list
> is the tendency to devise solutions to complicated problems.
> Sadly, this is just not a thing that can be done on a mailing
> list. If the FreedomBox proj
18 matches
Mail list logo
