On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 07:10:11PM -0600, Mark J. Roberts wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Scott Gregory Miller wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Mark J. Roberts wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Scott Gregory Miller wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'd actually prefer forcing a mapfile to exist in an SVK subspace in order
> > > > > to eliminate nesting a key in a key. Thats just ugly in my opinion. The
> > > > > advantage to MSK@pubkey,mapname//document was that both mapname and
> > > > > document are SSK documents residing under a common SVK public key. In
> > > > > other workds, it was a way of defining two keys under one URI without
> > > > > nasty embedding.
> > > >
> > > > And as I've said five times before, that also forbids guessable keys that
> > > > have paths that work correctly. What users prefer is often not what
> > > > programmers prefer. And users want simple guessable keys with no catches.
> > > Thats why we have KSKs.
> >
> > No, it's not that simple, you can't just redirect from a KSK to a MSK. For
> > one, it'll confuse the browser, and the links won't work. Among other
> > reasons.
>
> (I could be misunderstanding you here.)
>
> But KSKs are inherently insecure and should be avoided when not absolutely
> necessary. If you do have a "map" file like you suggested, then it should
> never be located directly under a KSK but rather under a secure key type
> (to which KSKs can be redirected). Since the map file would form the core
> document of the site, it is absolutely imperative that it resides within a
> secure key so that people can bookmark the site and be sure they are
> returning to the same place.
Precisely the reason I like having it be mandated as residing in a
subspace. It makes the MSK URI format clean, and avoids KSKs.
_______________________________________________
Freenet-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
