[Council] VOTE: SOCKS5 Bytestreams

Dave Smith dizzyd at jabber.org
Thu Feb 27 18:03:35 CST 2003


On Thursday, Feb 27, 2003, at 10:41 America/Denver, David Waite wrote:

> Quick question (since I know an author is on this list) - can I assume 
> in a Mediated Connection (Setion 3.2) that the mediator can be a real 
> SOCKS proxy? In that case, wouldn't I use my 'real' authentication for 
> that proxy rather than the dynamically generated keypair? Or is it not 
> possible to use an off-the-shelf SOCKS proxy for this purpose?

You simply can't use a SOCKS5 proxy with this. SOCKS5 proxies don't 
know that they need to wait around for a connection from multiple 
parties.

I'm surprised this (fundamental) issue didn't come up in the Council 
review of the JEP.

D.

>
> -David Waite
>
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>
>> We discussed the SOCKS5 Bytestreams proposal (JEP-0065) in the most 
>> recent
>> Council meeting and no Council members had objections. Therefore I 
>> would
>> like to present this JEP for a vote of the Council. Because this is a
>> Standards-Track JEP, a +1 vote means you approve of advancing this to
>> Draft. Please vote or voice your objections on the list.
>>
>> http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0065.html
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> --
>> Peter Saint-Andre
>> Jabber Software Foundation
>> http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.php
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Council mailing list
>> Council at jabber.org
>> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/council
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Council mailing list
> Council at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/council
>




More information about the Council mailing list