[...]
I slightly disagree here. But not enough anymore to really object.
I would dearly love you to disagree here. Not only because I'd rather like
to be wrong, but it'd be just like the good old days - and in any case, I'd
rather get the debate aired rather than raised later.
Well, I was
On 24-06-14 00:03, Dave Cridland wrote:
c) Metadata tracking by traffic analysis seems to be a valid
threat; a
suitable design would homogenise traffic to a degree, which
might reduce
the data one can glean from an encrypted session.
Right.
Since use of XEP-0033 for more efficient S2S has reared its ugly head once
more, I thought I'd try tackling this problem from a different direction.
We've rejected a number of designs (around 6 or 7) over the years aimed at
solving this general problem - sending multiple stanzas to a set of jids
[...]
The converse of these - bandwidth efficient, secure/private, RTT
efficient - would form our requirements.
makes sense.
I'd note a couple of changes to the server landscape might affect our
thoughts here.
a) As annoying as it is to me, compression seems related to a number of
security
On 23 June 2014 21:15, Philipp Hancke fi...@goodadvice.pages.de wrote:
[...]
The converse of these - bandwidth efficient, secure/private, RTT
efficient - would form our requirements.
makes sense.
I'd note a couple of changes to the server landscape might affect our
thoughts here.
