On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 09:29, Phillip Hallam-Baker
<hallam(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
No, the real reason not to build anti-censorship schemes into the
standards is that it is doomed to failure.
Agreed. However, it could still be useful towards that aim, on a
small-group scale, to have a communications protocol (or suite
thereof) that would be *resistant* to censorship, at least of the
kinds currently common. Most likely, something that would serve as a
carrier for something else -- and be more inconspicuous than IPsec.
Maybe something that an IPsec tunnel could be hidden in, with stego,
splitting, random onion routing, and recombination? Or maybe a suite
of protocols each aimed at one of these, with ability to combine (or
rather, nothing preventing combination)?
-Dave (the other other one)
--
Dave Aronson - Have Pun, Will Babble | Work: davearonson.com | /\ ASCII
-------------------------------------+ Play: davearonson.net | \/ Ribbon
"Specialization is for insects." | Life: dare2xl.com | /\ Campaign
-Robert A. Heinlein | Wife: nasjleti.net | Email<>Web
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf