> That might just work. A UUIDv4 is 128 bits, so it can be plugged in
> wherever 128 bits of nonce are required. However this isn't always the
> case, for example AES-GCM is commonly used with 96 bit nonces. Another
> thing to consider is that the egg provides UUID4. UUID1 might be smarter
> for a
Hello Mario,
> Would http://wiki.call-cc.org/eggref/5/uuid be suitable for the casae in
> question?
That might just work. A UUIDv4 is 128 bits, so it can be plugged in
wherever 128 bits of nonce are required. However this isn't always the
case, for example AES-GCM is commonly used with 96 bit
Hi,
On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 21:51:59 +0200 Vasilij Schneidermann
wrote:
>> 2. You're right! I actually hadn't thought about that! Guess I had a hard
>> time
>> not conflating "unique and non-repeatable" with random numbers... would a
>> timestamp be a better (but probably still not ideal)
Hi, Théo!
What I did is really the bare minimum to send and receive messages via req-rep
sockets, feel free to grab that if it is of any use to you. I've been thinking
about working on full-fledged bindings for nng, unfortunately I don't feel like
I have enough experience with the library to do
Hi ! That's cool, actor model is very useful !
Also nng is soo cool, that would be fantastic if you could extract a
standalone binding egg from your work !
How does your implementation perform in purely local single process
environment where serialization and encryption are not required ?
Hello John,
> *Any* numeric sequence will repeat eventually unless it grows without
> bound, like a TAI timestamp.
I take "repeats after exceeding 2^n consecutive numbers" over "repeats
with a 1/2^n chance" (which can be generalized to 2^(n/2) thanks to the
birthday problem).
> But actually
On Sat, Jun 26, 2021 at 2:38 PM Vasilij Schneidermann
wrote:
> 2. Cool that you use tweetnacl for encryption, but please don't use
> random numbers for nonces, that's just wrong. Nonces are not supposed to
> be secret, random or unpredictable, but unique numbers that do not
> repeat. Random
Hello Ariela,
> 2. You're right! I actually hadn't thought about that! Guess I had a hard time
> not conflating "unique and non-repeatable" with random numbers... would a
> timestamp be a better (but probably still not ideal) approach?
No, timestamps may repeat if taken quickly enough. Another
(so sorry about the duplicated mail, I forgot to hit reply to all)
Hey Vasilij, thanks for the feedback!
0. Haha I know, I legit found out about and got very interested in the actor
model wa after I got into Scheme, and was pretty surprised when I read
they're related.
1. Why both? Well,
Hello Ariela,
> But that's just my opinion, so I'd like to hear some feedback about it before
> I
> decide if it's worth submitting to the coop now, or ever.
>
> The project uses nng[1] for communication (I made some rudimentary bindings to
> the bare minimum), protobuf for serialization and
Hi all! Over the past few months I've been working on and off in a simple
implementation of the actor model. It actually started as a research/toy project
more than anything else (because I think the actor model is very neat), but
eventually seemed to be turning into something which *might*
11 matches
Mail list logo
