> Here are what I feel to be the significant issues: > > * Searching > * Unrequests > I think [hope] that everyone is happy with this now, it should be > reasonably straight-forward to implement
I don't recall a consensus here, but I have no major objection to it. I also don't think it's at all necessary, so I wouldn't put it at the top of my list, but it certainly won't hurt anything. > * Simulation > * Updates > This proved to be a thorny one, and we will probably need the simulation > to decide on the best way to do it I think we have clear ideas here, but yes, we need to simulate them to figure out which one really works. We _can_ start by defining the SVK keytype, independent of how it is inserted and found. > * Protocol issues > There is much discussion on the dev list about the protocol - this seems > to be coming up with sensible ideas, so I think that is progressing ok > already. I think we have compromised that a minimally-typed message content model has some advantages, but we haven't yet decided what those types are. > Thoughts? Have I left anything out? The most important thing of all, the very heart of Freenet: CHKs. -- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee at piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
