=?UTF-8?Q?Re:_Alternative_transports, _philosophy_[was:_Gemini_server_log?= ging formats and practices]

[Dave Huseby]

I totally understand. The next version of TLS is using something like Noise/CurveCP as the default protocol. What I don't like the most about TLS is the complexity due to backwards compatibility and protocol negotiation. Using TLS properly requires lots of tweaking of complicated parameters that very few people understand.

I still look forward to your post.

Cheers!
Dave

On Thu, May 14, 2020, at 2:23 PM, solderpunk wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 02:09:04PM -0700, Dave Huseby wrote:
>  
> > I surely will. I'm curious about your thinking.
> 
> I'm not sure you'll be completely sold, but I hope you'll see where I'm
> coming from.
> 
> To try to boil it all down:  I absolutely agree that TLS has problems
> and I don't doubt that other things, like CurveCP, might overcome or
> avoid a lot of them.  But I believe something built on TLS is
> overwhelmingly more likely to be widely implemented and deployed than
> something based on literally anything else, and at the end of the day a
> I think a good but not perfect protocol which becomes widely used and
> supported will do a lot more good for the internet than a "perfect"
> protocol which never becomes more than a curiosity for a small
> community of enthusiasts.
> 
> This is not to say I don't think anything "strange and new" can *ever*
> "catch on" or that I think any such efforts are a waste of time.  I wish
> all the radical projects aiming at lofty goals all the luck in the
> world, sincerely.  But there's a valid niche for something not quite so
> radical which can still be a real and valuable improvement over the
> status quo with very low barriers to adoption.
> 
> Cheers,
> Solderpunk
> 
>