On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 03:18:42PM +0200, Martin Richtarsky wrote: > On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 22:58:21 -0400, Michael Wiktowy wrote: > > >Let me know if you think that I am out to lunch with this. > >More constructive criticism would be greatly appreciated. > >Far future pre 1.0 ideas would be appreciated too. > > > >http://members.home.com/mwiktowy/roadmap.html > > > >Mike
The history is a little fuzzy. I don't remember exactly in what order what went in, but the changes to the node between 0.1 and 0.2 were pretty big, especially in the protocol (support for data tunneling, keep alive connections, etc). Basically 0.1 was "It's alive!", 0.2 was "It's alive and it's organs don't fall out as soon you poke it", and 0.3 is finally robust. Serapis is post-0.2 (it's where most of the code we did in June went). The fact that there is finally a decent client/client library is a big new feature with 0.3. I'm not sure about the order of stuff between 0.4 and 0.5. I think a real PKI is pretty high priority, and once that is in ARKs (which is address resolution keys) should be very simple. I agree about making optimizing routing high priority, though I think that "- decentralized node discovery " (which you have listed as 0.6) is actually a big part of that since I believe the "backwards" only nature of reference created through inform, and the fact that inserts are reversing the datastore vector, hurts routing. "Bidirectional references" is NOT a set thing for update propogation. Neither my nor Ian's argumented ways of achieving this used bidirectional references (though it (bi-ref) is, in my opinion, less insane what Ian wanted, though it suffers from the same basic flaw (any node should be able to find data - data should not be able to find any node)). "Node stealth" belongs or 0.7 or somewhere down there, or even possibly in further down (except maybe open sesame nodes which could be made part of the PKI). There is also the possibility of anonymity through an internal mixnet/onion routing structure. That should be somewhere down there. Otherwise this looks pretty correct - good work. You should probably adopt a syntax to denote things that are a uncertain. > Alternate transport protocols should be mentioned somewhere (unless you > mean that with 'protocol spoofing nodes '). Examples: UDP, HTTP, > perhaps even FTP? UDP is an alternate transport. The current Freenet Protocol over plain UDP will not be possible, since it assumes the transport is not lossy - another presentation/application layer protocol would have to be used. HTTP and FTP are alternate presentation/application layer protocols. They are not useful for Freenet, but one could imagine hiding Freenet's traffic inside the data part HTTP and FTP traffic. Not now though. > Martin > > -- > FemFind - SMB/FTP search engine (GPL'd) > http://femfind.codefactory.de/ > > Other projects: http://www.codefactory.de/ > > > _______________________________________________ > Freenet-dev mailing list > Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev > -- \oskar _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
