> Those were my thoughts when I read this proposal. Wait: put the pubkey IN
> the mapfile, or specify a SSK w/ pubkey AS the mapfile? No way you mean
> the former. That would be really weird. Nah.
Um...SSK pubkey as the mapfile? I don't know what you mean. I'm just
saying that the pubkey for the site doesn't have to go in the MSK.
But perhaps you're assuming that the mapfile and the site will always be
under the same subspace public key. I guess that's pretty reasonable. In
which case you could of course need to include the pubkey, you could only
refer to a mapfile as an SSK, and I think you could make the actual mapkey
optional.
So the syntax would look like:
MSK@pubkey/mapname//filename
i.e. MSK@324980234098234098/index.map//images/duck.gif
or (assuming index.map is the default name for a map file)
MSK@324980234098234098//images/duck.gif
> That makes sense, espcially if non-SSK keys were allowed for mapkey. Not
> limiting the mapfile to a SSK makes sense if you want to do sneaky things
> like KSK->SVK redirects without confusing the browser (i.e., before real
> Freenet plugins are standard).
If you wanted to allow for non-SSK mapfiles then you might want to move
the subspace pubkey into the mapfile so that you don't have to put both
the site's pubkey and the mapfile's pubkey both in the URI.
> to typing "freenet:MSK@pigdog//" and having everything happen behind the
> scenes where it belongs. That makes me favor your proposal. [2]
This syntax looks very nice, but assumes the site to not be in a
subspace. Most sites will probably look like my examples above.
> make the MSK any more logical? I see MSKs as a legitimate extension of any
> key. I mean, all we want to say is "this key is a mapfile" and "look this
> up." To me, at least, limiting them to SSKs actually adds confusion.
I also seem them as an extension to any key. But I'm not sure if anyone
will actually use them with other keys.
> [1] I'm in favor of assuming that, in your proposal,
> "freenet:MSK@KSK@pigdog//" equals "freenet:MSK@KSK@pigdog//index.html".
I see no reason not to allow for this. It seems quite sensible.
I would say, though, that you should be able to specify in the map file a
subspace public key for the site so that even using this exact same syntax
the site can be in a subspace.
That way, if the KSK is a date-based redirect it can redirect you to
today's map file and then map against that into a subspace. All very
smoothly.
> Just like web servers. It makes the URI even better than that MTV
> Britney-Spears-is-naughty special after footnote 2 is applied to it. You
> know the MTV special, the one where they have 13-year-old Blah Blah from
> Tennessee criticize Britney's outfit while they zoom in on her tits and
> ass. It's a great ploy.
I'm sorry I missed that.
> mechanism, "freenet:pigdog//" would imply
> "freenet:MSK@KSK@pigdog//index.html" while "freenet:KSK@pigdog//" would be
> exactly what is looks like. The 3 people who access KSKs with // in them
> will be able to continue to do so with FProxy. The rest of us can enjoy
> URIs like "freenet:britneyspears//".
I really would like implied MSK@'s. I think that would be great. I'm a
little wary (but not unconvincable) about this particular proposal because
you're assuming MSK on // and KSK on no //, which is kind of confusing if
there are any KSKs with // in them. At the very least, this behaviour
needs to be very well documented in big letters. But alas, I don't see a
better way to do it. Maybe somebody else should weigh in on the subject.
_______________________________________________
Freenet-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
