On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 09:29, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf