On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 6:05 PM, Martin
Langhoff wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:45 PM, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
>> so you should probably return a
>> lease which is valid except for the fact that the signed string has an
>> randomly-chosen UUID
>
> Exactly my thoughts -- as you can see in the b
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:45 PM, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> so you should probably return a
> lease which is valid except for the fact that the signed string has an
> randomly-chosen UUID
Exactly my thoughts -- as you can see in the bug. Implementing that
goes beyond merely coding it -- it would m
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 6:37 AM, Martin
Langhoff wrote:
> A while ago, Daniel fixed a bug in my changes to olpc-update, and that
> left me with a to-do item on the xs-activation side.
>
> Reviewed the situation on the OAT proto concept of always sending a
> stolen token, with the idea that xs-activ
A while ago, Daniel fixed a bug in my changes to olpc-update, and that
left me with a to-do item on the xs-activation side.
Reviewed the situation on the OAT proto concept of always sending a
stolen token, with the idea that xs-activation should do what the
protocol proposes: always send a 'stolen
