-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > > > 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.
Wait, in regard to typing? Now thats *really* ugly. You're saying that the behavior of typing is supposed to be unpredictable as well? By saying that unknown fields are dropped at gateways, you introduce the situation that you can't predict when a field will or will not appear on the other side of a gateway. Thats just *wrong*. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE5H1P6pXyM95IyRhURAmcUAKCK9IdfdGgu/rSofYyU499uplqfoACgkJCl 0S1Oh5e1AUQo5ccRB+p9tes= =9yx1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
