On Sun, Dec 24, 2000 at 11:35:44PM -0600, Mark J. Roberts wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Dec 2000, Scott G. Miller wrote:
>
> > Remember that these map files should be associated with an SVK, i.e
> > defined for the entire subspace. If you keep that in mind, you should be
> > able to simplify this proposal a bit.
>
> Why should they be associated with a SVK? Combining map files and SSK
> subspaces is confusing, because they are two very different systems. I
> can't think of any situation where you would want to use both SSKs and map
> files in the same directory structure. You might insert map files into a
> subspace, so you can use pseudo-updating. But you wouldn't want to have
> some files as SSKs and some files as entries in the map file.
>
> I need to think this through again. Preferably without Nine Inch Nails
> blaring... my moral standing is lying down, maybe I'm all messed up...
> this is the only time I really feel alive...
Keep thinking about it. If you combine SSK and map files (not necessarily a hard and
fast
combination), you can keep the implementation very simple by caching a mapfile in
fproxy as an
association to the SSK parent key.
PGP signature
