> I recall suggesting some time ago that each node could create a > public/private key pair, and attach the public key to its address > which other nodes could then learn about. A node wishing to send a > message to another node could then encrypt the message using the > public key. > > I can't recall whether someone pointed out a problem with this - can > anyone else recall what we decided?
I thought that this was fine, but that we should incorporate it into 0.4. > I mention this now because if we do want to implement this in the > future then we should ensure that our 0.3 release doesn't choke on a > future extended node address syntax which includes a public key. 0.3 servers probably won't interoperate with 0.4 servers if the latter have PK authentication. Unless we allow the 0.4 nodes to have an option to accept unauthenticated connections, which I'm not sure I like. Afaik, 0.4 would be the last non-backward compatible upgrade. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20000816/7a379b74/attachment.pgp>
