On Sun, 31 Dec 2000, Benjamin Coates wrote:
> >From "Mark J. Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >I assumed you insert them like
> >
> > InsertClient -createUpdate yes KSK@asdf
> >
> >which inserts a redirect like
> >
> > Redirect
> > increment=86400
> > baseline=20000101000000
> > End
> > freenet:KSK@asdf
> >
> >which equals freenet:KSK@20001231000000-asdf. Now I see that if I add a
> >-redirect option that can redirect to a SSK instead.
> >
> >But I don't know if that's a good idea because we want the redirect to be
> >in the same SSK as the files so it can be securely linked to. Oskar, what
> >do you think? Should we ban inserting these under KSKs so there's a
> >guaranteed way to securely link to them? It would be very bad if everyone
> >inserted these directly under KSKs, which I think they will. Having an
> >extra redirect for people using the KSK (KSK@asdf -> SSK@blah/asdf ->
> >SSK@blah/20001231000000-asdf) wouldn't be terrible. And after the first
> >time the extra delay would be almost imperceptible.
> >
>
> A problem with banning date-redirects in KSKs is that it would requrire the
> SSKs private key to redirect into that SSK. Being able to redirect into
> someone else's SSK is useful functionality we probably don't want to forbid.
But why can't you redirect to their date-updating redirect in their
subspace? Like KSK@mylink -> SSK@yourssk/yourstuff ->
SSK@yourssk/20001231000000-yourstuff.
> But you're right, putting a date redirect to an SSK in a KSK is usually the
> wrong thing to do.
>
> --
> Benjamin Coates
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Freenet-dev mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
>
--
Mark Roberts
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Freenet-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
