[announce] Delegation of responsibility for spec finalisation

Sean Conner sean at conman.org
Tue Mar 2 08:21:42 GMT 2021

It was thus said that the Great Petite Abeille once stated:
> > On Mar 2, 2021, at 01:52, Sean Conner <sean at conman.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> Second question: is there any reasonable way to decouple the Transport
> >> Layer Security requirement from the Gemini protocol itself?
> > 
> >  Short answer:  no.
> Let me rephrase the question: would it be possible to edit the Gemini
> specification in such a way that it makes TLS a SHOULD, not a MUST.
> This is purely an editorial adjustment, which would leave the door open
> for alternative transport layer beside TLS.
> Thoughts?

  If you want to explore alternative transport security methods, go to town
with an implementation, get the crypto community to pass it and *then*
present it to the Gemini community.  At that point, the discussion can

  Until such time and discussion show the new method to be viable, safe and
easy to implement, TLS will remain a MUST.  I do NOT want to encourage
anyone to create some halfbaked crypto scheme and make things worse.


More information about the Gemini mailing list