There have been many proposals for avoiding and resolving namespace conflicts
on this list - I'd like to add one (forgive me if this exact proposal has
been made already, I haven't read every single submission to this list):

Proposal:

- allow multiple (an arbitrary amount of) objects with the same key
- the clients are responsible for recognizing and selecting appropriate
  objects to present to the user based on the content
- no updates to objects are possible

The ideas behind this are:

- if you want to be sure about the originator and content of the object,
  you need some form of authentication anyway; if you want to avoid a
  centralized authentication system, the application (client) has to take
  care of this. Example: someone feeds Usenet articles into Freenet using
  keys such as "news/alt.test/<msg-id>". In order to prevent injection
  of fake articles, (s)he PGP-signs them and the application (Usenet-client
  using Freenet) selects only articles with the proper PGP signature.

- conflicts are resolved naturally by requiring the client select the
  appropriate content based on his/her requirements (such as "anything
  will do" / "must be authenticated using mechanism XYZ" etc.).

- a "web of trust" can be built on this: person A knows that person B
  and C are reliable people and has their public PGP keys. When looking
  up something, (s)he instructs the client to resolve key conflicts by
  preferring objects PGP-signed by A, B or C. A re-inserts the object
  with his/her PGP-signature attached (unless it was signed by him-/her-
  self already).

Open issues:

- PGP-signing something takes away some of the anonymity. Objects which
  noone will want to be associated with (illegal stuff) are more likely
  to disappear in a large heap of "spam" entries with the same key. On
  the other hand, PGP signatures can't be directly used to identify the
  signer (unless (s)he uses a real e-mail address).

- it may be necessary to put some of the selection/authentication logic (not
  data such as PGP keys!) into the server to avoid large transfers for single
  key requests (which could return many objects, most of which might be spam).

Comments?

-mjy
-- 
***==> Marinos J. Yannikos <mjy at pobox.com>
***==> http://pobox.com/~mjy

_______________________________________________
Freenet-dev mailing list
Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev

Reply via email to