> > The major disadvantages is Yet Another Keytype. I'm still reeling from > > the clumsy MSK format. Not that I'm arguing against it necessarily. > > Do you have any ideas about alternative ways to add a document name to a > URI that aren't so clumsy? I can't think of anything more simple than the > // format we use now.
You can eliminate the MSK keytype altogether by requiring // in keys to be escaped. I don't want to look up the ASCII code for /, so let's assume it's 23. MSK at SSK@sdkalsdklsa/site//blah becomes SSK at sdkalsdklsa/site//blah MSK at SSK@sdkalsdklsa/a//b//blah becomes SSK at sdkalsdklsa/a%23%23b//blah And you always assume that an unescaped // means that the key is referring to a control document and you then map the docname. So, doing this and moving DBRs into SSKs gives us these keys: KSK at prefix[//docname] CHK at dockey,encryptionkey SSK at pubkey[,privkey][,baseline,increment]/prefix[//docname] That seems pretty clean to me. _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
