Am Mittwoch, dem 06.11.2024 um 22:43 +0100 schrieb Christian Grothoff:
> Hi Martin,
>
> A few comments:
>
> 1) I don't know why you want to go for a KEM. Using a KEM seems
> well-motivated if the goal is to go post-quantum, but AFAIK that is
> not
> the objective here. I generally consider DH t
Hi Martin,
A few comments:
1) I don't know why you want to go for a KEM. Using a KEM seems
well-motivated if the goal is to go post-quantum, but AFAIK that is not
the objective here. I generally consider DH to be cleaner, simpler and
just overall better than a KEM. That said, your write-up do
Am Mittwoch, dem 06.11.2024 um 11:21 + schrieb Willow Liquorice:
> I am a little surprised that GNUnet's transport layer relies on
> bidirectional communication between peers. Hypothetical
> steganographic
> communicators, or sneakernet connections, may not have that luxury.
Communicators ma
Oh. The key exchange is relevant for CONG in so far that we will also
have to do the KX. It does not matter if our transport is libp2p or
"GNUnet-Transport".
BR
Am Mittwoch, dem 06.11.2024 um 11:37 + schrieb Willow Liquorice:
> I was really asking more generally about how the key exchange fit
I was really asking more generally about how the key exchange fits in
with CONG.
Regards,
Willow Liquorice
On 06/11/2024 11:32, Martin Schanzenbach wrote:
Am Mittwoch, dem 06.11.2024 um 11:21 + schrieb Willow Liquorice:
I am a little surprised that GNUnet's transport layer relies
I am a little surprised that GNUnet's transport layer relies on
bidirectional communication between peers. Hypothetical steganographic
communicators, or sneakernet connections, may not have that luxury.
How does this fit in with the GNUnet-CONG project to interoperate with
libp2p?
Regards,
