[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Monotone-devel] Key identities...
From: |
Timothy Brownawell |
Subject: |
Re: [Monotone-devel] Key identities... |
Date: |
Sun, 04 Nov 2007 19:55:10 -0600 |
On Sun, 2007-11-04 at 19:13 +0100, Richard Levitte wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I just saw that another case when someone created two keys with the
> same key id on the IRC log. While those mistakes are a bit
> frustrating in themselves, what's even more frustrating is that the
> signatures from one of the identically identified keys will be
> invalid, even though the key itself really is OK.
>
> So, I'm wondering, is there any reason, except for the database
> migration that will follow and the fact that *someone* will have to do
> the job, that stops us from switching to identifying keys by
> fingerprint rather than name, at least internally?
Could we also handle this by making process_data_command error() on
data_exists for a key item? I believe all keys are sent before any certs
are sent, so this should block any key collision errors from propagating
over netsync.
--
Timothy
Free (experimental) public monotone hosting: http://mtn-host.prjek.net
- [Monotone-devel] Key identities..., Richard Levitte, 2007/11/04
- [Monotone-devel] Re: Key identities..., Lapo Luchini, 2007/11/04
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Key identities...,
Timothy Brownawell <=
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Key identities..., Nathaniel Smith, 2007/11/05
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Key identities..., Jack Lloyd, 2007/11/05
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Key identities..., Chad Walstrom, 2007/11/05
- [Monotone-devel] Re: Key identities..., Graydon Hoare, 2007/11/05
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Key identities..., William Uther, 2007/11/18
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Key identities..., Jack Lloyd, 2007/11/18
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Key identities..., William Uther, 2007/11/18