On Sat, May 06, 2000 at 10:34:04PM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote: > On Sat, 06 May 2000, Bill Trost wrote: > > Oskar Sandberg writes: > > I think it is fair to allow for zeros at the front of the value to > > be cut off. > > > > What business does a node have making modifications to the ID generated > > by a node? All the UniqueID is being used for is a comparison value. > > There is no point in converting the ID to a number, only to convert it > > back to characters when the next packet is sent. This is especially > > relevant to implementations that don't support numbers long enough to > > contain a UniqueID (like gcc on the i386). > > The UniqueID is a value. It has always been a value. Just because I was clumsy > when I wrote that part in Liberator (I think it only happens if you don't have > a dev/urandom also, since it has never happened to me), doesn't change the > fact > that it is a value. > > If you want to change it to a string, then we can discuss that, but as of now > it is a value.
Which brings up a question I have. Is the description of the protocol that has been so kindly provided by Mr. Crocker an accurate picture of what changes are going to be made? Message types, headers and field values, etc. It would be nice to know if it describes what folks are intending to implement. David Schutt _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
