Sorry, I hadn't noticed that you linked specifically the conflux (reconciliation code). That is indeed a good start if someone wanted to take the time to understand it.
On Sat, Jul 14, 2018, 20:16 Human at FlowCrypt <hu...@flowcrypt.com> wrote: > Hockeypuck has not had any commits in years, if I saw correctly. > > It cannot process some of the keys (maybe for a good reason, but it will > clog the recon mechanism nevertheless, I suppose). > > I think it was a great effort, but apparently not maintained. > > If the recon process could be updated with mechanism where some > implementations could seamlessly choose not to import certain keys, I think > hockeypuck would be a great alternative. It may need to be forked. > > > On Sat, Jul 14, 2018, 19:33 Moritz Wirth <m...@flanga.io> wrote: > >> Though I am not sure, https://github.com/hockeypuck/conflux may be worth >> a look. >> >> If somebody has a short How-To for installing hockeypuck (and importing a >> keydump..), I am happy to test if it is more stable than sks :) >> >> Best regards, >> >> Moritz >> >> Am 14.07.18 um 02:50 schrieb Tom at FlowCrypt: >> >> I would have loved to write an alternative SKS implementation that >> addresses the issues we were seeing recently. However, this: >> >> - Set Reconciliation with Nearly Optimal Communication Complexity >> <http://ipsit.bu.edu/documents/ieee-it3-web.pdf> >> - Practical Set Reconciliation >> <http://ipsit.bu.edu/documents/BUTR2002-01.ps> >> >> >> is preventing me from doing so. I'm a software engineer, not a >> mathematician, and I have little willingness to attempt implementing an >> algorithm nobody understands. >> >> I wish the title said "simple" and "resilient" rather than "with nearly >> optimal communication complexity", and the contents matched the title. >> >> The pool of engineers willing and able to get us out of this mess would >> be much larger. >> >> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 11:23 PM, Andrew Gallagher <andr...@andrewg.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> > On 13 Jul 2018, at 22:43, Moritz Wirth <m...@flanga.io> wrote: >>> > >>> > FWIW, has anybody even started working on a fix for any of the bugs? >>> >>> There has been a fair bit of discussion, but no consensus has been >>> reached, apart from a general agreement that major changes to the recon >>> model will be required, and that these will be necessarily >>> backwards-incompatible. That’s generally where the discussion dries up. >>> >>> I get the impression that everyone is holding fire until there is some >>> sign that one particular form of breakage will be more broadly acceptable >>> than the others. >>> >>> A >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sks-devel mailing list >>> Sks-devel@nongnu.org >>> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/sks-devel >>> >> >> >>
_______________________________________________ Sks-devel mailing list Sks-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/sks-devel
