Yeah, so his ideas cut accross all kinds of layers and aspects of
networking. so I don't think VOS can be THE solution to the problems
he explains, but it can provide a few key tools. Namely it can be a data
storage system, both for originals, and replicated copies, and for
store-and-forward,
: Re: [vos-d] Van Jacobson: named data
In effect, regardless of the wrapper, unless you have the original 1959
first episode of Rocky and Bullwinkle, you probably can't answer those
trivia question correctly.
There are some approaches to organize these decentralized verification
processes
Lalo Martins wrote:
On Wed, 09 May 2007 09:07:57 +0200, Karsten Otto wrote:
I don't quite understand what you need versioning for. The bulk of
changes you get in a shared word is avatar movement, which may wind up
to ~30 changes per second per avatar. Do you really want to keep a
record
I don't think Jacobson was suggesting that a really new paradigm in
networking would be able to handle the robust case of broadcast data, of
which unicasting is simply a subset. I find you need a little creativity
to fill in some of the gaps in the later part of the talk, since he
wasn't
I downloaded a copy of this video if anyone wants it.
Reed
___
vos-d mailing list
vos-d@interreality.org
http://www.interreality.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vos-d
(Cutting the great summary, keeping the VOS part)
On Mon, 07 May 2007 22:57:05 -0400, Peter Amstutz wrote:
So, Lalo, this is probably a bit more than you expected :-) I think the
answer to your question (could VOS be useful for the things Van
Jacobson talks about) is yes, if we incorporate a
Well, on a technical level you have digital signatures that give you a
technical way to verify that information from a given source has not
been tampered with. Provided you trust that the public key used to sign
that data did in fact come from that entity, of course, but trust has to
start
Understood completely and I know how SSL, checksums, asymmetric keys, etc
work but without the understanding that content drifting away from its
original sources corrupts means the buyer doesn't understand the technical
solution is not the whole solution.
In effect, regardless of the wrapper,
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 03:56:07PM -0400, Reed Hedges wrote:
There are lots of ways to do version control in VOS-- we already have it
partly implemented. One important thing that we need to decide is how
to expose particular object revisions to remote sites. I think we need
to be able to
This means that if that version object is mutable, i.e. a not read-only
property, we need to also have branches in the version history, and any
reference to a past version of a vobjcet is really a reference to the
most recent version in the branch rooted on this object, which if there
is
I guess each copy, whether changed or not, should have a pointer to its
original. I wonder if any vobject version should not have it's
versions inside it, but simply have a pointer to it's predecessor (or
the other way around, an object has links to all its derivatives). Then
you can have
Versioning yes, but also vetting and revetting of sources. The further you
get from original sources in any communication system, the more noise you
incur without adequate checks. Shannon 101. Names alone won't do it.
I put a trivia test at my personal blog just for a Do you trust Google and
Aaron Bentley posted to the bzr list about a Van Jacobson talk:
I was watching this talk by Van Jacobson about a new networking
paradigm, and I started going hey, I know this stuff.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6972678839686672840hl=en
Around 37:31, he starts talking about a
13 matches
Mail list logo
