On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 02:11:46PM -0500, Brandon wrote: > > Does RFC 1945 define a redirect field? I guess it does since redirects > > seem to happen quite a bit on the web. We need automatic redirects for the > > keys that shouldn't generally carry data. > > Yes, a redirect field would be good. Or perhaps the redirect information > could go in the trailing field. Then you could set the Content-type to > something like freenet/redirect. Similarly with indices. All of the > content could go in the trailing field.
Don't use trailing field to refer to the data part of the document. This will only end up with everybody confused. Trailing field is all the binary data that follows a DataSend message, this includes the encrypted document, the metadata and the data parts. I don't mean to be anal, but we have enough confusion of terms here as it is. > > I have no opinion about what is the better choice. RFC 1945 will make > > Freenet to HTTP gateways a lot easier, FNP is what we use for everything > > else. > > I prefer to use FNP for everything. I would most like it if once the > trailing field was encrypted, it contained a document in Freenet protocol > (fields followed by trailing field) and that such documents could be > nested. Where have you been? The document _is_ encrypted, it has been for several months... -- \oskar _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
