On Tuesday 28 October 2003 05:34 am, Some Guy wrote: > If anyone(Frost user) can write to the TUK how is it better/different than > a KSK? Has your TUK idea changed? I thought the idea was to allow more > complicated signing policies for groups of people.
no, that is something else. (not a bad idea, but not what I'm talking about) I'm talking about a TUK as a key that would be stored under the SSK for a channel that lists the current version number. Anyone with the private key can send an increment request. (So, you can see where it might be usefull to have something better than SSKs whereby you can have each user with their own key, but it does not require that.) > > > (routingSuccessRatio) - this proposal gives a possible means to > > > mitigate that. And I rather think it is possible to implement it using > > > relatively little RAM, and to substantially reduce the RAM usage of > > > other subsystems. And finally, RAM is cheap... > > > > OK, so maybe the overhead isn't huge. However there will be some and TUKs > > are indisputably a good idea, and IMHO a much better solution. > > The problem the way I understand it with frost is that it tries to use > freenet as a dumb DHT to build communication layer on top. > You want "ACDC". > Someone advertises having "ACDC". > You tell him to give you "ACDC". > It's all done in a series of posts and requests, which isn't pretty, but > works. Seems to me that it'll be frixed someday with more passive > insert/requests. > > Is this the main problem you're tring to solve, or is it just tons of lost > CSKs. If we had TUKs all one would have to do is fetch the SSK for the channel, look at the current version number, and download whatever back messages you want. (or in the case of files, upload a new manifest version, and add your file to the list) You never have to mess with KSKs or trying to build some external communication layer. _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
