On Tue, May 29, 2001 at 08:04:38PM -0400, eigenman wrote: You do use HTTP directly. The WWW is HTTP.
> But Ian just told me that KSK@ is the simplest choice for easy naming on the > freenet protocol. > He sugested this as an equivaliant to .free naming. > If this is insecure then freenet is already insecure. Easy naming and security are, in Freenet, mutually exclusive. If you want security, use SSKs, or CHKs, if you want ease of naming, use KSKs - but you can't have both. > > Nobody is suggesting using command line interfaces. > > Where did you get that from? > > Command line ism ss the notion that command line like interfaces trump > others for various reasons.(some good some not) > At the moment freenet seems to be a command line protocol. Understandable. > Its an infant. > But people will say this makes it more secure. This is not true. Some > one's ignorance of command line intracies of the interface is not a > platform for arguing security unless you plan to make some kind of secret > society. You are arguing against a strawman. The .free issue has little todo with ease of use. Nobody here is arguing for making freenet difficult to use, we are arguing against a mechanism which is: * Insecure * No easier to use * Has a more complex installation process > David McNab has simply wrote something that can tested. Now the debate > should begin. > A concensous should be formed on a naming standard a this point. > Names are important and should not be taken lightly. Quite, and there is already an established way to name documents in Freenet, namely the Freenet URI spec, and an adaptation of this which is fully compliant with HTTP and HTML standards, and is in common usage and working fine (just look at http://www.freegle.com/). Further, this URI spec can allow keys to be specified in a very simple way - namely a string of text, albeit with a security penalty that is inevitable with such systems. > David is not re-writing freenet. He made his own app on his own time. A > freeet app. > People don't have to use it. But if people like it they will. > Let the usage vote. Fine, or we could agree on an established standard and not waste our user's time and creative resources. 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/20010529/a7af5673/attachment.pgp>
