[spec] Oustanding issues
petite.abeille at gmail.com
Mon Jan 11 20:10:45 GMT 2021
> On Jan 11, 2021, at 20:47, easrng <easrng at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not writing a client right now, but if I was, I think I would
> handle certs a few different ways. First, if it was tunneled over a
> protocol that is already encrypted (ex. Tor), I'd accept any
> certificate, because TLS would be redundant, even though the spec
> requires it.
Good point. I actually do that over wireguard -using old school ident at time- LAN type ala tailscale †. No point for TLS in such setup.
It was suggested to move TLS outside of the core protocol (i.e. gemini+plain), and precisely define TLS as a Gemini "profile", i.e. gemini+tls.
No traction :P
> If the certificate was valid and trusted by the CAs
> installed, I would also accept it, even if that means overwriting an
> earlier TOFU entry. Otherwise, I would handle them like SSH handles
> keys, by asking the user on the first connection if the certificate is
> trusted. Hopefully blockchain-based naming systems will make cert
> validation easy some day, as you could just check if the cert matches
> the signature in the blockchain of the person who owns the domain.
This is all sounds rather reasonable.
The part I don't really like personally is the mixed metaphor of ( TOFU + X.509 ) = ‽
More information about the Gemini