commit c9139967229f6b511a5b21278a2553ed620a4ded
parent bf2b41910c4c3ac3ecafca6b93b27cca6e6816a5
Author: Martin Schanzenbach <schanzen@gnunet.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2023 17:58:29 +0200
some reload reasoning
Diffstat:
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/draft-schanzen-r5n.xml b/draft-schanzen-r5n.xml
@@ -316,13 +316,18 @@ example://12.3.4.5/
</t>
</section>
<section numbered="true" toc="default">
- <name>Key differences to RELOAD (<xref target="RFC6940"/>)</name>
+ <name>Key differences to RELOAD</name>
<t>
<xref target="RFC6940"/> specifies the RELOAD DHT. The R<sup>5</sup>N DHT
described in this document differs from RELOAD in its objectives
- and thus in its design. R<sup>5</sup>N is intended for open
+ and thus in its design.
+ In particular, <xref target="RFC6940"/> explicitly states that node identifier
+ are either assigned by a central authority, or self-issued in the case of closed
+ networks.
+ R<sup>5</sup>N, by contrast, is intended for open
overlay networks, and thus does not include a central enrollment server to
- certify participants. As participants could be malicious, R<sup>5</sup>N
+ certify participants and does not limit participation in another way.
+ As participants could be malicious, R<sup>5</sup>N
includes on-path customizable key-value validation to delete malformed
data and path randomiziation
to help evade malicious peers. R<sup>5</sup>N also expects to perform
