Proposal 1.1 (P11)¶
aka pEp onion routing/remailer?
This is an attempt to transcribe V. ideas after juga’s presentation on January 12, 2021 [MixmailerSlides] and some other comments with N. and D. These are not juga’s ideas.
As D. noted, it should probably not be called mixnet.
This proposal very similar to Proposal 1 (P1) design. The main difference seems to be not aiming to implement a mix network but just onion routing, which it is actually simpler.
Any mention to prototype means this: [Mixmailer]
As in Proposal 1 (P1), client decide the route for the message.
The user might also decide.
As in P1. SMTP, no TLS.
Same as in P1. Each node have its own private/public OpenPGP keys.
Key discovery (by clients and nodes)¶
In P1 it was proposed that nodes/clients exchange messages to discover keys. Then we started to use GNUnet GNS in the prototype. In this proposal we’ll continue with GNS is used to query the list of nodes to the authorities and other nodes’ keys. In the prototype it’s explained in more detail: Mixnet nodes registration in GNS, though the part about layers should be ignored.
This is being researched by N.
Types of nodes¶
All the same. In the prototype juga decided thought it would be better to use stratified topology, but it can be removed.
No packets, just messages. Not really MIME Multipart Encrypted (and Signed?). pEp message 2.x? [ref?].
Instead of padding in a way that the final messages are all the same few fixed sizes, they’ll be padded randomly. If the final message is too big it’ll be just discarded. This is different to what was tried to implement in the prototype and P1.
Packet mixing & delays¶
Undecided. If it’s just onion routing, in principle there’s no need for. In the prototype there was just random delays.
It doesn’t exist.
Community will be made.