On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 12:49:28PM -0400, Tavin Cole wrote: > > But why is a secured FNP connection better than simply adding an > > authentication handshake to FCP? > > I'm not saying one's better or worse than the other. Adding more > stuff to FCP is more work for us though .. the secured FNP mechanisms > are already written.
I guess the question is not what is more work for us, but what is less work for the client author. FCP is designed to make clients as easy to implement as possible without the benefit of a language-specific library. Reimplementing FNP would be much more difficult that implementing a simple hash-based handshake. Ian. -------------- 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/20010629/351662cc/attachment.pgp>
