Dirk Meyer wrote: > Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> Justin Karneges wrote: >>> On Monday 15 December 2008 07:46:16 Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>>> Therefore I suggest that we simplify e2e by using >>>> something very close to the original XTLS proposal to set up, use, and >>>> tear down and XTLS tunnel. I've outlined the protocol below. >>> First, we should use IBB. Sure, it adds complexity with the block sizes >>> and >>> message vs iq, but you want this stuff. The only downside is the extra >>> round >>> trip on startup. >> And the concern that lots of server admins will block IBB because people >> use it for file transfer, whereas (some) server admins might be less >> likely to block a technology that enables user security. > > Since you can use IBB over XTLS, an admin may ban XTLS, too.
Yes, but why not minimize the reasons for blocking end-to-end encryption?
