On 12/07/2014 3:04 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote: > On 07/11/2014 02:27 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote: >> - supports non-TCP protocols. >> - security section says it could be full of lies. So the A[ctually] is >> incorrect. > > IMHO, you are being too literate with the words in the protocol name > while being very permissive with the protocol specs. Most of the ones > you rejected can be used without harm IMHO. > > >> I was thinking you had something funny along the lines of: >> >> * Traffic Envelope Annex protocol (TEA p'ot) > > I did not have anything like that in mind. Personally, I would not call > it "envelop" because the protocol does not envelop the message, it only > provides a prefix, header, or "top line". This is why I suggested > "letterhead" rather than "envelop".
It is not message (Layer 3) related in the slightest. This is an Layer 2.1 envelope for the entire connection for delivery between softwares. Below even TLS (Layer 2.5). Amos > > Other related variants are: > > * Client Letterhead Protocol > * Client Annex Protocol > > Pretty much anything would be better than PROXY though :-). > > > Cheers, > > Alex. >
