[minion-cvs] Add question about how to calculate KeyID.

[nickm@seul.org (Nick Mathewson)]

Update of /home/minion/cvsroot/doc
In directory moria.seul.org:/tmp/cvs-serv10881

Modified Files:
	minion-spec.tex 
Log Message:
Add question about how to calculate KeyID.

Add comment about protocol string.


Index: minion-spec.tex
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/minion/cvsroot/doc/minion-spec.tex,v
retrieving revision 1.33
retrieving revision 1.34
diff -u -d -r1.33 -r1.34
--- minion-spec.tex	21 Jun 2002 15:48:48 -0000	1.33
+++ minion-spec.tex	25 Jun 2002 11:51:23 -0000	1.34
@@ -207,6 +207,10 @@
                    we generate new keys.
              -NM]
 
+[XXXX And by the way, how exactly do we compute a hash of a public
+  key? What encoding do we use?  Do we just use the modulus, or must
+  we include 'e' as well? -NM]
+
 A SWAP routing type tells the node to exchange headers as described below.
 
 The EMAIL field in the SMTP routing type should be a valid mailbox
@@ -650,7 +654,7 @@
       side only), so we needn't worry. -NM]  
 
 X.509 certificates need not be signed; instead, they must contain
-a key matching that used in the KEYID portion of the header's routing
+a key matching that used in the KEYIDportion of the header's routing
 data.  
 
 Messages are sent from client to server; the client must send a
@@ -698,6 +702,13 @@
 [XXXX This seems to imply that MMTP implementations must stay
   backward compatible forever, or at least implement a contiguous set 
   of versions.  Is this really so? -NM]
+[XXXX On further thought, this situation is unacceptable.  I think that 
+  A must send a comma-sepaarated list of protocol versions.  Here's
+  why:
+        Suppose that we've published protocols 1.0, 1.1, and 1.2.  Suppose
+  that 1.2 is better than 1.0, and 1.1 has turned out to be horribly 
+  insecure.  A client should be able to say ``PROTOCOL 1.0,1.2'' so
+  that it can cleanly refuse to support 1.1. -NM] 
 [XXXX BTW, is NL 'LF' or is it 'CRLF'? -NM]
 
 * If B is not willing to use any protocol A supports, B closes the