> It seems to me to be quite undesirable and inflexible to make the > encryption method part of the address. For example, what if you have a > reference in your datastore from last year which points to: > twof:tcp/piclab.com:19114, but since then twofish has been broken and > everyone is using threefish now? Or if you have a node which supports > multiple encryption types you will have a messy proliferation of different > addresses for the same node, and you might end up using a weaker algorithm > than you have to. (e.g., Alice supports both DES and rot13, Bob only > supports rot13, so Bob's reference to Alice's node is > rot13:tcp/alice:19114; Chandler gets this reference from Bob, but even > though Chandler speaks DES he ends up speaking rot13 to Alice.)
Hmmm, yes, I see your point. I guess we should not go with the public-key in address idea - but I still fail to see why people are saying inter-node encryption is so difficult to achieve. Ian. _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
