On Sat, 30 Dec 2000, Benjamin Coates wrote:

> >From "Mark J. Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> >The date-based redirects are already in InsertClient, so it shouldn't be
> >very hard to copy them. Quite a few options, but they all make sense. I
> >don't like a the format of the key. For example,
> >
> >     freenet:SSK@AwypMJH9hhiQWxwb0m6CygNe3~Cm6Y15/20001230000000-blah
> >
> >could more intuitively be
> >
> >     freenet:SSK@AwypMJH9hhiQWxwb0m6CygNe3~Cm6Y15/blah/20001230000000
> 
> I was worried that this broke filename extensions.
> 
> >or maybe
> >
> >     freenet:SSK@AwypMJH9hhiQWxwb0m6CygNe3~Cm6Y15/20001230000000/blah
> 
> And that this has the potential to break relative links.

Yeah. You're right.

> >and that bugs me. I also didn't like the fact that the key you redirect to
> >has to be in the same subspace (or a KSK) as the redirect.
> 
> Not to my knowledge;  If this is true, then it's a bug.

I assumed you insert them like

        InsertClient -createUpdate yes KSK@asdf

which inserts a redirect like

        Redirect
        increment=86400
        baseline=20000101000000
        End
        freenet:KSK@asdf

which equals freenet:KSK@20001231000000-asdf. Now I see that if I add a
-redirect option that can redirect to a SSK instead.

But I don't know if that's a good idea because we want the redirect to be
in the same SSK as the files so it can be securely linked to. Oskar, what
do you think? Should we ban inserting these under KSKs so there's a
guaranteed way to securely link to them? It would be very bad if everyone
inserted these directly under KSKs, which I think they will. Having an
extra redirect for people using the KSK (KSK@asdf -> SSK@blah/asdf ->
SSK@blah/20001231000000-asdf) wouldn't be terrible. And after the first
time the extra delay would be almost imperceptible.


-- 
Mark Roberts
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


_______________________________________________
Freenet-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev

Reply via email to