> I agree with Oskar on this one. Don't drop fields. By allowing unknown > fields to pass through Freenet, not only do we allow forward
I'm not saying to allow forwarding of unknown fields through freenet, I'm saying allow them to be forwarded except through gateways. Since the number of unknown fields is small and the number of gateways is small, it's not a big deal. > compatibility, but we allow uses of Freenet that we might not have > conceived of. Think of networks layed out on top of Freenet that have > somewhat different behavior but use the core protocol for routing. If you're using the core protocol then none of this is an issue; it's only an issue when you're switching between two protocols, one of which is typed, the other is untyped, and the node doing the translating doesn't recognize some of the fields. _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
