💾 Archived View for rawtext.club › ~sloum › geminilist › 005843.gmi captured on 2023-11-14 at 09:49:21. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Sean Conner sean at conman.org
Tue Mar 2 08:21:42 GMT 2021
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
It was thus said that the Great Petite Abeille once stated:
On Mar 2, 2021, at 01:52, Sean Conner <sean at conman.org> wrote:
Second question: is there any reasonable way to decouple the Transport
Layer Security requirement from the Gemini protocol itself?
Short answer: no.
Let me rephrase the question: would it be possible to edit the Gemini
specification in such a way that it makes TLS a SHOULD, not a MUST.
This is purely an editorial adjustment, which would leave the door open
for alternative transport layer beside TLS.
Thoughts?
If you want to explore alternative transport security methods, go to townwith an implementation, get the crypto community to pass it and *then*present it to the Gemini community. At that point, the discussion cancommence.
Until such time and discussion show the new method to be viable, safe andeasy to implement, TLS will remain a MUST. I do NOT want to encourageanyone to create some halfbaked crypto scheme and make things worse.
-spc