Hi Rich,
What you describe here sounds exciting to me. I am very interested in
communication solutions that prioritize all of sneakernet, encryption, and
conventional use.
I was wondering if you know of any modern sneakernet resources, or
up-and-coming systems which support this? Right now I
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
>
> Many of these kinds of proposals are wonderfully thought out BUT
> they presume underlying network infrastructure that (a) exists
> (b) has sufficient performance (c) is not heavily censored/blocked
> (d) is not heavily monitored/surveilled
Many of these kinds of proposals are wonderfully thought out BUT
they presume underlying network infrastructure that (a) exists
(b) has sufficient performance (c) is not heavily censored/blocked
(d) is not heavily monitored/surveilled.
The problem with that, as everyone here probably knows all to
The name is a coincidence and the former project has a very little to do
with what I sent, there is an entityID concept in the proposal instead
of a CA one, since the later obviously can't work with entities that
can't have a valid certificate, entityIDs could be combined with let's
encrypt
Le 02
You probably want to look at this proposal by Moxie, he has already used
the name convergence and while that project is dead, the Certificate
Transparency standard is based on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergence_(SSL)
I am not looking at the transport layer right now. If a transport of
Please find here: http://www.peersm.com/Convergence.pdf a proposal
addressing all of what you are discussing here and even more (IOT,
crypto money, etc), writen for some fundings opportunities but that did
not make it so far for some administrative reasons + apparently some
misunderstanding regardi
Hello Phillip, nice reading your feedback.
On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 03:21:52PM -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> I believe that mail, chat, voice, video, blog comments and mailing lists
> are all separate messaging modalities that need to be addressed in any
> replacement scheme. However, there
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 2:15 PM, carlo von lynX
wrote:
> Coming from: Phillip Hallam-Baker
> > One of the big problems I have found in trying to argue for ways we can
> > improve Internet security is that there are two camps. The
> incrementalists
> > will only look at solutions that provide an i
Coming from: Phillip Hallam-Baker
> One of the big problems I have found in trying to argue for ways we can
> improve Internet security is that there are two camps. The incrementalists
> will only look at solutions that provide an improvement on the status qujo
> in one area and the perfectionists
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker
One of the big problems I have found in trying to argue for ways we can
improve Internet security is that there are two camps. The incrementalists
will only look at solutions that provide an improvement on the status qujo
in one area and the perfectionists insist that a
10 matches
Mail list logo