new Internet Draft: Enabling Network Traffic Obfuscation - Pluggable Transports

[David Oliver]

With the assistance of the Privacy Enhancements and Assessments Research Group (PEARG) of the Internet Research Task Force, we have submitted a new Internet Draft to the IETF covered the work on "Pluggable Transports" as a means of privacy protection.  The submission is based on the Pluggable Transports 2.1 Specification authored by Brandon.  

The ID lives at: https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-oliver-pluggable-transports-00.txt

Many thanks to the Pluggable Transports community for their inspiration and effort in this emerging area.  Additional information can be found  at https://pluggabletransports.info/.

Brandon Wiley, Operation Foundation

David Oliver, Guardian Project

David Oliver about.me/davidmoliver

[Vinicius Fortuna [vee-NEE-see.oos]]

The tracker is here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-oliver-pluggable-transports/

Where is the public discussion happening?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Network Traffic Obfuscation" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to traffic-obf...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/traffic-obf/CAEwkZ531Zpj0nDENubT0qJUvefs%2BUr36wPjBUrQtMw%2BeNCikQg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Alexander Færøy]

Hello David and Brandon,

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 03:22:42PM -0400, David Oliver wrote:
> With the assistance of the Privacy Enhancements and Assessments Research
> Group (PEARG) of the Internet Research Task Force, we have submitted a new
> Internet Draft to the IETF covered the work on "Pluggable Transports" as a
> means of privacy protection. The submission is based on the Pluggable
> Transports 2.1 Specification authored by Brandon.
>
> The ID lives at: https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-oliver-pluggable-transports-00.txt

Exciting work you have been doing here!

I am curious what the rationale is for doing the PT specification as an
IETF RFC? To me, the IETF RFC process have always seemed like a long
process to go through and I am not sure I understand what the PT
community gains from having the PT specification as an IETF RFC? What is
the incremental specification update process going to look like once the
specification is finalized and the RFC identifier have been assigned?

In the Tor Project, we haven't gone through the IETF standards process
for our network protocol specifications (yet?) because we currently
believe it's easier for us, as a community, to continue to iterate on
our specifications with our own self-defined specification process. I
believe this has been a successful decision made by people in the Tor
Project long before I joined, since today we have an active community,
including non-Tor employees, that are contributing with specifications
or specification updates. This includes people from the volunteer
development community, researchers, and people who are generally
interested in learning more about the inner mechanics of Tor itself.

As you probably know, in the Tor Project we have recently been doing
some minor updates to the older pt-spec.txt (the LOG and STATUS feature)
in our specification repository and we have some upcoming, but minor,
changes we are interested in doing as well, so I am curious how this
will impact our future also if we decide to adopt the PT 2.1
specification, which still remains unsupported in the Tor code right
now.

Looking forward to hear from you! :-)

All the best,
Alex.

--
Alexander Færøy