Various identifier choices Re: [p2p-hackers] Morpheus, Freenet, MojoNation (was Semantic Routing BOF)

[Oskar Sandberg]

On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 11:45:50AM -0700, Gordon Mohr wrote:
> Oskar Sandberg writes:
> > I considered if the way of calculating UID values from data might
> > actually be an area where we should be trying to "interoperate" between
> > the different networks, but I figure that even there the emphasis is
> > too different for it be worth it.
> 
> With Bitzi, we don't mind a proliferation of identifiers, because
> we aim to provide, as metadata, alternate names/IDs for catalogued
> files.

Of course, you can always make a universal identifier by concatenating
(/including) all the possible options, but a global unique data
identifier standard would certainly be pretty nice. It is more difficult
than just choosing a hash algorithm though, considering things like
prehash encryption and metadata. Just trying to create a document format
that always coalesces for identical data is difficult enough since
the trend elsewhere has been text formats that are not strict (not
character sensitive, allow for comments, have spacing issues, etc, etc).

<>
> Might it not be nice, someday, to tunnel different segments from 
> different places, simultaneously or spread across time periods, 
> for lots of reasons -- not least of which being performance and 
> resistance to traffic analysis? 

No, this hash format is used to verify streams as they pass through
nodes, within atomic pieces of data. The verification segments are not
seperately addressable - and making them so (which makes no sense
because we have another format for that) would mean changing the data
format anyways.


-- 
'DeCSS would be fine. Where is it?'
'Here,' Montag touched his head.
'Ah,' Granger smiled and nodded.

Oskar Sandberg
oskar at freenetproject.org