[hashcash] Re: more format stuff

>>>>> "Adam" == Adam Back <adam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

[...]

Adam> - a v1 client never knows what version it is talking to so it has
Adam> to send what? both versions?

Maybe we can design in some sort of upward compatibility.  From v0 to
v1, the first 3 fields are the same.  If we say that they will always
be the same, for all future versions, then when a v0 parser sees a
version number that it doesn't understand, then it checks the date,
checks the resource, ignores the rest of the stamp, and checks the hash.

The only problem would be if we have to change hash algorithms, but I
don't think there's anything we can do about that.  So I think the
parser would have to: if the stamp matches with sha1, then treat it as a
valid stamp.  If the stamp doesn't match, and the version is unknown,
then treat it as if the stamp didn't exist (as opposed to treating it
as a forged stamp).

I don't know.  I'm just thinking out loud.

[...]

Adam> Other issue with v0 going into debian stable (via debian testing)
Adam> is that it would propogate the above problem.

OK.  I'll keep hashcash blocked from testing until a new hashcash with
v1 stamps is released.

[...]

Adam> I'm just trying to avoid making big problems and complexity later
Adam> by trying overly to avoid small problems now, a common software
Adam> deployment mistake IMO.

That sounds good.

-- 
Hubert Chan <hubert@xxxxxxxxx> - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7  5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net.   Encrypted e-mail preferred.

Other related posts: