On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 12:03:06PM -0600, Tom Kaitchuck wrote: > On Tuesday 28 October 2003 05:34 am, Some Guy wrote: > > If anyone(Frost user) can write to the TUK how is it better/different than > > a KSK? Has your TUK idea changed? I thought the idea was to allow more > > complicated signing policies for groups of people. > > no, that is something else. (not a bad idea, but not what I'm talking about) > I'm talking about a TUK as a key that would be stored under the SSK for a > channel that lists the current version number. Anyone with the private key > can send an increment request. (So, you can see where it might be usefull to > have something better than SSKs whereby you can have each user with their own > key, but it does not require that.) > > > > > (routingSuccessRatio) - this proposal gives a possible means to > > > > mitigate that. And I rather think it is possible to implement it using > > > > relatively little RAM, and to substantially reduce the RAM usage of > > > > other subsystems. And finally, RAM is cheap... > > > > > > OK, so maybe the overhead isn't huge. However there will be some and TUKs > > > are indisputably a good idea, and IMHO a much better solution. > > > > The problem the way I understand it with frost is that it tries to use > > freenet as a dumb DHT to build communication layer on top. > > You want "ACDC". > > Someone advertises having "ACDC". > > You tell him to give you "ACDC". > > It's all done in a series of posts and requests, which isn't pretty, but > > works. Seems to me that it'll be frixed someday with more passive > > insert/requests. > > > > Is this the main problem you're tring to solve, or is it just tons of lost > > CSKs. > > If we had TUKs all one would have to do is fetch the SSK for the channel, look > at the current version number, and download whatever back messages you want. > (or in the case of files, upload a new manifest version, and add your file to > the list) You never have to mess with KSKs or trying to build some external > communication layer.
What makes you think this wouldn't be grossly exploitable? Publicly writable TUKs seem a bad idea to me... the question is whether they are worse than the alternative. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
