On Fri, 29 Dec 2000, Brandon wrote:
>
> Brandon:
> > > I think that any node should be default act as a shield node if so
> > > requested. There should be a message or a field in a message which
> > > indicates that the sending nodes wants to be shielded. This is a sensible
> > > place to put things since where the shielding indicator would goes is with
> > > the reference to the node in the shield node's datastore.
>
> Ian:
> > I don't think this is nescessary. A node should make it apparent
> > (possibly in a handshake) if it is not willing to be a shield node, it
> > needs to give no permission beyond this. If it is willing, then all it
> > needs to do is to forward messages which have shadow addresses using
> > it's public key, to the shielded node.
>
> There also needs to be some way in the protocol that the shielded nodes
> specifies that it wants to be shielded so that the proxy node can
> differentiate between nodes that do and do not want to be shielded.
No, you still dont seem to get it. Shielded nodes have encrypted
addresses with the shield node in the clear in their references. Any
other node works as before.
_______________________________________________
Freenet-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
