Sorry as this has probably been explained - but if client p2p is a
possibility, how will clients find eachother :?
Surely everyone would need static external IPs - which simply isn't
the case with the web today.
This is mostly all over my head - but I have never even seen a web
based p2p chat program before. I thought it simply wasn't possible to
communicate between two browsers without a sever between them.
or does p2p mean something different in this context?
On 22 June 2013 18:53, John Blossom <jblos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Michael,
>
> I like that way that you put it. Hopefully what we wind up with is a
> protocol that is fundamentally P2P but which interacts with servers as
> ultra-efficient UI-less peers equipped with some super-powers and services
> that may not be present in the P2P domain persistently. Call it p2p2P, so
> to speak. John
>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Michael MacFadden <
> michael.macfad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> MY humble opinion on the P2P issue is as follows. I think if we develop
>> algorithms that can work in a P2P mode, then we can also support a
>> client/server architecture as well by just controlling who the peers talk
>> to. I think the problem with wave was not the client server architecture,
>> but rather the way the servers interacted with each other. The servers
>> themselves implemented something like a client/server relationship within
>> federation. This meant that even if you were connected to your local wave
>> server, if that wave server could not communicate with the wave server
>> that initiated the wave, you were out of luck.
>>
>> I am not against having servers at all. In fact I think that things get
>> very complicated if you have no servers what so ever (document storage,
>> discovery, users, etc.). But if we need to make sure servers are peers.
>> So we need a P2P style OT algorithm. Again do not confuse a P2P network
>> topology (DHT, etc) with P2P OT Algorithms. A P2P OT Algorithm can also
>> easily be made to behave like a Client/Server OT algorithm, where as the
>> reverse is not feasible.
>>
>> ~Michael
>>
>> On 6/21/13 5:46 PM, "Sam Nelson" <so...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>> >Wow, that was some heavy reading (:
>> >
>> >This section raised some questions for me:
>> >
>> >*4) Routing p2p messages/events in a pure P2P system (5 parts)*
>> >How to manage to route all wave-stuff if we want to completely get rid of
>> >servers completely, and only use peers.
>> >The closest way would be to use a DHT, but huge latency is an unsolved
>> >problem, and makes it impossible to use for real-time waving.
>> >No other solution has been proposed.
>> >
>> >My question is simply, perhaps naively: why pure p2p?
>> >Originally when I heard of p2p OT I saw it as a way to collaboratively
>> >work offline in a LAN environment, and to sync pairs that are almost
>> >always offline, by means of a proxy peer that moves between WAN and the
>> >offline LAN. The peers would talk in much the same way that two
>> >federating servers would, using their offline caches as a datasource
>> >instead I'm guessingthis is like the MESH network John refers to.
>> >
>> >When talking about P2P between peers /over the internet/ - could
>> >somebody please explain to be the purpose of and vision for this? Why
>> >not just use a server, it seems to simplify things alot? (Firewalls,
>> >authentication - can do offline like Windows 8 does with Microsoft
>> >Account)
>> >
>> >Is purep2p just for privacy? Or is it really for alternate uses of the
>> >protocol - other than the the documents and conversation use cases we
>> >saw in Google Wave?
>> >
>> >Just an idea, in order to "open the eyes" of those drawn to this mailing
>> >list, might it be beneficial to build up a wiki page of accepted use
>> >cases so that everyone can read them and take them into account when
>> >considering different ideas? That'd facilitate discussions like "well
>> >this works for all our use cases except #13.... <discussion ensues about
>> >this case>"
>> >
>> >Sam
>> >
>> >
>> >On 22/06/2013 01:06, John Blossom wrote:
>> >> Bruno,
>> >>
>> >> Thanks, this is an excellent summary. It helps me to get the gist of
>> >>things
>> >> more clearly.
>> >>
>> >> On the P2P latency, I don't think that it would be unacceptable to draw
>> >>a
>> >> line and say that P2P provides limited, non-guaranteed realtime OT or
>> >>that
>> >> it's not realtime OT and more of a syncing mode than a conversation
>> >>mode.
>> >> That would probably be sufficient for what needs to be done, especially
>> >> since in some instances P2P-enabled Wave sessions may be using MESH
>> >> networks for transport - a key factor in how a lot of experimental
>> >> communications services are being deployed in developing nations (not
>> >>just
>> >> the Project Loon concept). In the MESH model, you're likely to have one
>> >> node within range of another temporarily, which may sync with it, and
>> >>then
>> >> pass along data to another node when it comes in range of it. That's the
>> >> most probable scenario for P2P in many instances, I would think. The
>> >>other
>> >> potential scenario: two people in a remote location, for the sake of
>> >> argument two movie script-writers who have holed themselves up in a
>> >>remote
>> >> location to collaborate on a common script. They're on two devices that
>> >>are
>> >> very proximate to one another, so perhaps the latency issues will not
>> >>be so
>> >> severe.
>> >>
>> >> Things to think about, I will look at this more carefully later today.
>> >>
>> >> All the best,
>> >>
>> >> John Blossom
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Bruno Gonzalez (aka stenyak) <
>> >> sten...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Following Joseph's "A Very Wavey Plan (P2P!)" thread, a couple of
>> >>> discussions have taken place at the irc.freenode.net #wiab channel,
>> all
>> >>> related to P2P.
>> >>>
>> >>> I've taken the liberty to restructure the IRC logs, remove some
>> >>>chitchat,
>> >>> and divide it into sub-discussions. Feel free to reply to any part of
>> >>>this
>> >>> email to continue a discussion.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> *Summary of discussions:*
>> >>> *====================*
>> >>> *1) Underlying protocol for P2P federation*
>> >>> Currently XMPP is used. HTTP and raw TCP are two suggested candidates
>> >>>(HTTP
>> >>> allowing to much more easily reach restricted networks).
>> >>>
>> >>> *2) Message/event types needed for P2P federation to work*
>> >>> We'd need something similar in concept to certain git operations (git
>> >>> clone, git push...). All will be based on hashes (not incremental
>> >>> integers).
>> >>>
>> >>> *3) Routing p2p messages/events in a server-aided network*
>> >>> One option is to somehow detect server clusters, send data to one of
>> >>>them,
>> >>> and let the rest of the cluster servers synchronize to it (locally).
>> >>> Alternatively, the originator server can naively send stuff to all
>> >>>possible
>> >>> destination servers, regardless of the cost.
>> >>>
>> >>> *4) Routing p2p messages/events in a pure P2P system (5 parts)*
>> >>> How to manage to route all wave-stuff if we want to completely get rid
>> >>>of
>> >>> servers completely, and only use peers.
>> >>> The closest way would be to use a DHT, but huge latency is an unsolved
>> >>> problem, and makes it impossible to use for real-time waving.
>> >>> No other solution has been proposed.
>> >>>
>> >>> *5) Implementing "undo": invertibility, tombstones, edge cases, TP2*
>> >>> No server means no canonical order of commits, which means that undo is
>> >>> hard to do correctly.
>> >>> (uhm... not sure if that's a good summary, some stuff went over my head
>> >>> :-D, please read the log instead)
>> >>>
>> >>> *6) Usability of a pure p2p system in Real Life (tm)*
>> >>> Being pragmatic, pure P2P is probably only usable in peers with good
>> >>> connectivity. Rest of peers will need to rely on a server/proxy that
>> >>>*does*
>> >>> have good connectivity.
>> >>>
>> >>> *7) Comparison with BitTorrent and P2P-TV technologies*
>> >>> Both technologies are much less restricted than wave with regards to
>> >>> real-time responsiveness. So none are really a good reference for our
>> >>> purposes.
>> >>>
>> >>> *8) Identifying participants (3 parts)*
>> >>> Pure p2p means many peers don't have a name@centralized-server.comuser
>> >>> handle, so an alternative has to be used.
>> >>> However, it's easy to provide a traditional friendly handle, if the
>> >>>user
>> >>> prefers the tradeoff of having to often rely on a permanent server.
>> >>>This
>> >>> tradeoff can be mitigated by using a sort of userhandle cache.
>> >>>
>> >>> *9) P2P anonymity (lurking in a wave) (2 parts)*
>> >>> In a pure p2p wave network, anonymous peers may want to read a public
>> >>>wave,
>> >>> without other peers knowing. A solution could be to make private the
>> >>> required wavelets (where the anonymous participants IDs are stored).
>> >>>
>> >>> *10) Encryption of waves*
>> >>> It's been proposed to use an AES key to encrypt all the wave data, and
>> >>>only
>> >>> allow participants to decrypt it.
>> >>>
>> >>> *11) Addition and removal of participants, and their ability to read
>> >>>past
>> >>> and future wave versions/deltas*
>> >>> The aforementioned AES key can change over time, allowing a
>> >>>finer-grained
>> >>> restriction of what deltas new/removed participants can read.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> *
>> >>> *
>> >>>
>> >>> *Actual conversations:*
>> >>> *====================*
>> >>> *
>> >>> *
>> >>> *1) Underlying protocol for P2P federation:*
>> >>> [in response to Joseph's email]
>> >>> [23:42] <alown> I [...] agree with option 2 (make every root a JSON
>> >>>blob)
>> >>> [23:43] <alown> You haven't really detailed (at all) how the P2P
>> >>>federation
>> >>> is actually going to work (beyond 'not like IRC')
>> >>> [23:44] <josephg> Personally, I'd love some raw TCP action
>> >>> [23:44] <alown> I agree using KISS principle.
>> >>> [23:44] <josephg> a few years ago (not long after wave was cancelled)
>> >>>there
>> >>> was a 'wave summit'
>> >>> [23:45] <josephg> - and a few of us chatted about how we could make the
>> >>> federation protocol simpler
>> >>> [23:45] <josephg> we ended up (somehow) deciding that doing it over
>> >>>http
>> >>> woul dbe a good idea
>> >>> [23:45] <josephg> because then we could sneak it into companies past
>> >>>their
>> >>> corporate HTTP firewalls, etc
>> >>> [23:45] <josephg> but in any case, I'd like to figure out the protocol
>> >>>and
>> >>> (at least) have a TCP version
>> >>> [23:46] <josephg> it should be pretty easy to wrap the same messages in
>> >>> websockets if we want
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> *2) **Message/event types needed for P2P federation to work:*
>> >>> [23:46] <alown> Do we need anything more complicated than the
>> >>> waveletSubmit/Commit messages used currently?
>> >>> [23:46] <alown> (Replace wavelet with 'abstract p2p ot container name)
>> >>> [23:46] <josephg> um, yeah.
>> >>> [23:47] <josephg> we'll also be able to rip out all the code that deals
>> >>> with managing the tree of servers per wave
>> >>> [23:47] <josephg> but yeah - the protocol will get a bit more
>> >>>complicated
>> >>> [23:47] <josephg> ... because we'll lose our beautiful integer version
>> >>> numbers
>> >>> [23:47] <josephg> so we'll need a protocol for syncronizing ops
>> >>> [23:48] <josephg> yeah - ops will each have a hash
>> >>> [23:48] <josephg> and two servers could each have ops the other server
>> >>> doesn't have
>> >>> [23:48] <josephg> so we have to be able to deal with that
>> >>> [23:47] <alown> What other 'events' are cared about by any particular
>> >>> server?
>> >>> [23:47] <alown> For a SHA hash?
>> >>> [23:48] <josephg> -> we'll need something like git's sync protocol
>> >>> [23:48] <alown> So, initial server contact is 'git clone', and then
>> >>>some
>> >>> form of 'git push' on changes?
>> >>> [23:49] <josephg> yep.
>> >>> [23:49] <josephg> push on changes is easy - its basically the same
>> >>>thing we
>> >>> have now
>> >>> [23:49] <josephg> just instead of saying "This should be applied at
>> >>>version
>> >>> 10" we say "This op has parents [abc123, def456]"
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> *3) **Routing **p2p **messages/events in a server-aided network:*
>> >>> [23:49] <alown> With P2P do we have to broadcast to all peers? How do
>> >>>we
>> >>> coordinate that between them?
>> >>> [23:50] <josephg> between servers? I dunno.
>> >>> [23:50] <alown> How does BT handle this?
>> >>> [23:50] <josephg> should we just connect every server to every other
>> >>> server? That'd work fine...
>> >>> [23:50] <josephg> I guess every server can address every other server
>> >>> [23:50] <josephg> beacuse the wave will have al...@a.com and
>> >>> josephg@b.comand so on on it
>> >>> [23:50] <alown> This feels very inefficent...
>> >>> [23:51] <josephg> so if you submit an op to your server, your server
>> >>>can go
>> >>> "Oh, I need to tell b.com about this too"
>> >>> [23:51] <josephg> well, if there's 10 servers, presumably all 10
>> >>>servers
>> >>> need to find out about ops somehow.
>> >>> [23:51] <josephg> - assuming we stick with the current model of having
>> >>> servers store all your operations
>> >>> [23:51] <josephg> .. and documents for all the users at their domain
>> >>> [23:51] <alown> But server 'b' and 'c' might both be part of a wave,
>> >>>but
>> >>> also know each other, and know that they are 'closer' to each other
>> >>>than
>> >>> 'a' is. So, we would want a->b/c then b<->c
>> >>> [23:52] <josephg> so actually, having the server which originates an
>> >>> operation send it to all the other servers on that wave is actually
>> >>>close
>> >>> to ideal.
>> >>> [23:52] <josephg> yeah maybe.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> *4) **Routing **p2p **messages/events in a pure P2P system (part 1):*
>> >>> [23:54] <alown> BT uses DHT for its P2P stuff...
>> >>> [23:54] <josephg> ...I guess we could use a DHT storing all the ops,
>> >>>but
>> >>> thats pretty slow
>> >>> [23:55] <josephg> and you still need to notify all servers with users
>> >>>on
>> >>> the wave that the wave was updated.
>> >>> [23:55] <alown> Maybe, or perhaps only notify those within a certain
>> >>> 'distance', with each server doing that. (Though could mean some
>> >>>servers
>> >>> are never updated)
>> >>> [23:58] <alown> Perhaps we could make the network setup 'SuperWaves'
>> >>>which
>> >>> broadcast to all peers, and carry all information, but normal wave
>> >>>servers
>> >>> do not reach this status?
>> >>> [23:58] <alown> By having it decide itself based on how 'connected' a
>> >>> server is, this could find the most efficent ways to route it.
>> >>> [00:01] <josephg> Do you think it'll really be a problem?
>> >>> [00:01] <josephg> I mean, thinking about it - how many servers will be
>> >>>on a
>> >>> given wave?
>> >>> [00:01] <alown> Depends.
>> >>> [00:01] <alown> No idea.
>> >>> [00:01] <josephg> If it were a public wave, I can imagine clients just
>> >>> connecting to one (or more) centralized servers
>> >>> [00:01] * josephg nods
>> >>> [00:02] <josephg> ... But say if we were having a conversation on
>> >>> wave-dev@apache, there's like, at most 20 people in a discussion from
>> >>>5 or
>> >>> so domains
>> >>> [00:03] <josephg> ... I think we can deal with that kind of load.
>> >>> [00:04] <josephg> but if the protocol lets any server tell any other
>> >>>server
>> >>> about an operation, then it should be pretty easy to set up something
>> >>>like
>> >>> that.
>> >>> [00:04] <josephg> maybe.
>> >>> [00:04] * josephg thinks
>> >>> [00:05] <josephg> hm - you're right. I think I've just gotten used to
>> >>>the
>> >>> crappy state of doing routing for broadcasting messages to a network
>> >>> [00:05] <josephg> if you can find / think of a better solution, I'm in.
>> >>> [00:12] <alown> Heh, anyway replacing the network layer code SHOULD be
>> >>> easy, since it SHOULD be cleanly seperated.
>> >>> [00:13] <alown> Getting an initial implementation up using broadcast is
>> >>> fine.
>> >>> [00:13] <alown> (I was thinking of Wave's use in other apps as a
>> >>>reason you
>> >>> could have a lot of different participant domains)
>> >>> *...4) Routing **p2p **messages/events in a pure P2P system (part 2):*
>> >>> [08:53] <stenyak> as for the "how to *really* do p2p", i see two
>> >>>options:
>> >>> a) use a dht-like algorithm and/or b) use a helper server to route
>> >>>stuff
>> >>> for you
>> >>> [08:54] <stenyak> a) can be pretty slow if you want all OPs to reach
>> >>>all
>> >>> peers (if I'm not mistaken)
>> >>> [08:54] <stenyak> and b) is essentially makes it not-p2p
>> >>> [08:55] <stenyak> additionally, using p2p, how are we going to deal
>> >>>with
>> >>> routing problems (such as firewalls on both sides, etc)?
>> >>> [08:56] <stenyak> in my mind, the only universal solution is to have a
>> >>> third party server available to go through if we want speed or if we
>> >>>want
>> >>> to work on all edge cases
>> >>> [08:56] <stenyak> and wave being advertised as realtime, i don't see
>> >>>how
>> >>> something like dht can ever fly
>> >>> [11:20] <alown> stenyak: This is why I was wondering about a DHT system
>> >>> with 'Superwave' servers (to act as a first point of contact).
>> >>> [11:59] <stenyak> that would be like skype dynamic supernode list?
>> >>> [11:59] <alown> The original system, yes.
>> >>> [12:02] <stenyak> so we would devise a method to identify candidates to
>> >>> being a supernode, in order to prevent cellphone wave peers from
>> >>>becoming
>> >>> one, and in order to promot certain other nodes (like major peers that
>> >>>have
>> >>> 99% uptime, e.g. wave.google.com or whatever) to become one
>> >>> [12:03] <stenyak> bandwidth, latency, open ports, uptime...
>> >>> [12:04] <alown> Once a network has been bootstrapped using something,
>> >>>it is
>> >>> relatively easy to identify the hosts which are most densely connected
>> >>>(and
>> >>> would be good supernode candidates)
>> >>> [12:05] <stenyak> what do you mean with "using something"?
>> >>> [12:06] <alown> Somehow the network has to initially be able to make
>> >>> contact with other nodes (before it knows anything about them)
>> >>> [12:07] <alown> For a LAN you could get away with a broadcast
>> >>>'announce',
>> >>> but it is a bit less clear on an internet-sized scale.
>> >>> [12:08] <stenyak> bittorrent sync uses a broadcast for LAN. for
>> >>>internet it
>> >>> uses a tracker server for fast discovery of peers, or you can disable
>> >>>that
>> >>> and force to use DHT (with the long wait that means)
>> >>> [12:09] <stenyak> the tracker can also act as a meeting-point for
>> >>> firewalled peer pairs (which in my experience is a lot of them)
>> >>> [12:09] <alown> Precisely the problem, because we don't really want
>> >>>long
>> >>> waits or trackers.
>> >>> *...4) Routing **p2p **messages/events in a pure P2P system (part 3):*
>> >>> [12:42] <stenyak> hmmm... i'm not sure how a peer gets a list of waves
>> >>>in
>> >>> which he's a participant of
>> >>> [12:43] <alown> Having a canonical source makes it all so much easier.
>> >>>:P
>> >>> [12:44] <stenyak> for pure p2p peers to "receive" new waves, either the
>> >>> FROM or the TO peer (or both) would need to try to find their way to
>> >>>the
>> >>> other
>> >>> [12:44] <stenyak> and we're assumign here that each person only runs
>> >>>one
>> >>> peer
>> >>> [12:45] <stenyak> e.g. my privatekey may be used by 5 wave peers at the
>> >>> same time, and we must make sure the new wave reaches all of them
>> >>> [12:46] <alown> Looks like we may need to have mulitple DHTs then (one
>> >>>for
>> >>> ops, one for waves)
>> >>> [12:46] <stenyak> in BT, it's the receiver end who actively looks for
>> >>>peers
>> >>> to receive from. in wave, it's not like that..
>> >>> [12:46] <alown> Or could we have a pubkey->wave mapping in one?
>> >>> [12:46] <stenyak> and in BT, you can assume *many* people has the data
>> >>>you
>> >>> want
>> >>> [12:46] <stenyak> in wave, its possible and probably that only one
>> >>>other
>> >>> peer in the universe has the wave
>> >>> [12:46] <stenyak> (because it's a personal wave sent to you)
>> >>> [12:47] <alown> I would expect any long-running supernodes to be
>> >>>implicitly
>> >>> part of all waves they know about.
>> >>> [12:47] <alown> Though on second thought, this seems like it would add
>> >>>its
>> >>> own problems to authentication, storage, promotion of supernodes etc.
>> >>> *...4) Routing **p2p **messages/events in a pure P2P system (part 4):*
>> >>> [12:51] <alown> Does it make sense for a peer to have your privkey,
>> >>>since
>> >>> you could be logged in anywhere, so it would be down to the place you
>> >>>are
>> >>> logged in, to 'subscribe' to that wave on the network, and attempt to
>> >>> retrieve all data from it...
>> >>> [12:55] <alown> I was expecting the network as a whole to act like a
>> >>> WaveBus pubsub system, whereby once 'logged in' at some server (which
>> >>>means
>> >>> it gets your privkey from the authentication system), that server then
>> >>> 'subscribes' to your waves on the 'network'. If somebody else at some
>> >>>other
>> >>> server changes it, then that server would be announcing to the network
>> >>>of a
>> >>> change (doesn't necesserily have to be a broadcast), which your server
>> >>> would 'hear'.
>> >>> [12:56] <alown> You could do this from any server where you logged in
>> >>> (hence the concept of a domain is lost).
>> >>> [12:57] <stenyak> by "server" you mean supernodes?
>> >>> [12:57] <alown> Not necessarily.
>> >>> [12:59] <stenyak> this pubsub network must be aware of nodes that are
>> >>>in
>> >>> it, in order to directly route wave updates to them, correct?
>> >>> [12:59] <stenyak> and also, this network wouldn't be very volatile, but
>> >>> would rather ideally be long-lived peers?
>> >>> [13:00] <alown> It has no reason to have to directly route updates,
>> >>>(though
>> >>> it would hopefully be able to identify the best routes automatically).
>> >>> [13:00] <alown> Yes it would require a few long-lived peers (which
>> >>>would be
>> >>> part of the requirement to be a supernode).
>> >>> [13:01] <stenyak> so let's say i connect my laptop wave peer to the
>> >>> "server" in the living room, at my firewalled home. this "server"
>> >>>would be
>> >>> already subscribed to the pubsub network, and in this specific case it
>> >>> would route all wave updates to me
>> >>> [13:02] <stenyak> in other cases (let's say, ipv6-enabled nodes
>> >>>everywhere,
>> >>> no firewall at home), the living room server could simply notify the
>> >>> original "FROM" peer to send stuff to my laptop ipv6 ip, right?
>> >>> [13:03] <alown> That sounds right. Supernodes are really only needed
>> >>>for
>> >>> getting the routing right.
>> >>> [13:05] <stenyak> ok. in both these theoretical cases, the "server"
>> >>>hasn't
>> >>> necessarily been a wave node per se (nor a supernode either), but
>> >>>rather a
>> >>> second type of wave node that helps get stuff quickly wherever it's
>> >>>needed
>> >>> [13:05] <alown> Yes.
>> >>> [13:05] <alown> I am not even sure where OT should be happening in this
>> >>> picture...
>> >>> [13:05] <stenyak> if OT happens, the "server" is a blind proxy i think
>> >>> [13:06] <stenyak> so does not need the privkey to work
>> >>> [13:07] <stenyak> unless we're also using OT in the wavebus pubusb
>> >>>network
>> >>> for some reason?
>> >>> [13:07] <alown> Supernodes can be blind (though they might also just be
>> >>> normal well-connected wave servers). I would expect normal servers to
>> >>>still
>> >>> be doing OT. The question is whether the 'client' (whatever that means)
>> >>> should be doing it also.
>> >>> [13:08] <alown> The network shouldn't need OT. (Algorithms exist that
>> >>>allow
>> >>> the incoming ops to be arbitarily queued and only processed when
>> >>>needed).
>> >>> [...]
>> >>> [21:21] <josephg> alown: the client always needs to do OT because
>> >>>otherwise
>> >>> they can't both edit a document live and receive operations from
>> >>>people who
>> >>> didn't have their ops.
>> >>> [21:22] <josephg> the server doesn't need to do OT, although if it
>> >>>doesn't
>> >>> do OT, it'll punt the OT work to its clients - which will result in a
>> >>> higher CPU utilization on mobile devices.
>> >>> [...]
>> >>> [13:08] <stenyak> i pictured this "server" as being an optional item
>> >>>that
>> >>> shortcuts the long waits of DHT, rather than something necessary for
>> >>> "clients"?
>> >>> [13:08] <alown> Hmm.
>> >>> [13:08] <alown> I suppose we should define what a 'client' is then...
>> >>> [13:09] <alown> We have at least 2 layers of stuff going on here: 1)
>> >>>Wave
>> >>> OT/operation layer 2) Network routing/P2P layer
>> >>> [13:13] <alown> But it is quite plausible something might be doing
>> >>>both of
>> >>> those
>> >>> [13:10] <stenyak> with your pubsub net suggestion, i was picturing 2
>> >>>kinds:
>> >>> a regular pure p2p peer, and a helper kind of node to route stuff
>> >>>quickly
>> >>> when a peer is connected to it
>> >>> [13:13] <stenyak> so with that picture in mind, layer 1 stuff could go
>> >>> directly from peer to peer (if connectivity/firewalls allows), or
>> >>>through
>> >>> the "helper node" if available
>> >>> [...]
>> >>> [13:20] <stenyak> [...] all this discussion looks very similar to
>> >>> discussing how to design internet+dns, i think the problems are the
>> >>>same
>> >>> really
>> >>> [13:20] <stenyak> or at least we could take some inspiration from it
>> >>>maybe
>> >>> [13:20] <alown> This was my conclusion last night with josephg. ('The
>> >>> problmes should already be solved (see The Internet)')
>> >>> [14:09] <stenyak> and The Internets solved the problem how? By having a
>> >>> large set of supernodes (dns servers), that may take a whole day to
>> >>> propagate updates. The alternative being having the actual IP address
>> >>>in
>> >>> the first place, or to centralize stuff
>> >>> [14:10] <stenyak> (aka use servers everywhere)
>> >>> [14:22] <alown> Maybe, but the internet's design is X (where X > 20)
>> >>>years
>> >>> old, so may not represent the most modern thinking of how to make
>> >>> distributed networks.
>> >>> [14:59] <alown> (Don't forget that our aim for Wave is at the
>> >>>cutting-edge
>> >>> of academic research also).
>> >>> [...]
>> >>> [14:50] <stenyak> i just threw the question at some friends who should
>> >>>be
>> >>> more up-to-date with networking technologies than me... hopefully they
>> >>> comeback with some revolutionary dns-2 design or something that we can
>> >>>copy
>> >>> [15:18] <stenyak> could give as some ideas: http://openpeer.org/
>> >>> [15:18] <stenyak> (it's not a solution, but maybe they did the same
>> >>> reasoning we're going through)
>> >>> [15:46] <stenyak> another response i got goes along the lines of...
>> >>>hard as
>> >>> fuck, but if you manage to do it, you are a hero
>> >>> [...]
>> >>> [15:02] <stenyak> looking at it from a wider perspective, what we want
>> >>>is
>> >>> similar to having each peer shout at the whole world "here i am,
>> >>>anything
>> >>> got something for meeee?" in some way that doesn't clog the internet
>> >>>tubes,
>> >>> and that is so fast as shouting would be. i start to think it's not
>> >>> physically possible to do that...
>> >>> [15:03] <stenyak> if publickeys were handed to people based on the
>> >>> location, then we could have routing tables similar to how internet
>> >>> currently works
>> >>> [15:03] <stenyak> but pubkeys are... well, random. so that kind of
>> >>>routing
>> >>> that allows anyone to connect to an arbitrary IP in a matter of
>> >>> milliseconds is impossible, i believe
>> >>> [15:04] <alown> So, we end up with DNS for public keys?
>> >>> [15:04] <stenyak> something like dns, but much faster [wrt. propagation
>> >>> times]
>> >>> [15:05] <stenyak> so in essence, a tree of servers or whatever (which
>> >>>is
>> >>> similar to how wave currently works, right?)
>> >>> [15:05] <alown> Heh. But the whole point was to avoid the tree system
>> >>> currently (since it is susceptible to netsplits)
>> >>> [...]
>> >>> [15:56] <stenyak> maybe the real question could be: how do we make DHT
>> >>>much
>> >>> faster?
>> >>> [16:14] <stenyak> once the initial discovery process is finished, the
>> >>> transmission of data will not have the lag associated with DHT, so
>> >>>even if
>> >>> DHT takes 10 seconds, that could be acceptable
>> >>> [16:15] <stenyak> i.e. a new peer takes 10 seconds to be discovered by
>> >>>the
>> >>> rest of participants collaborating in a wave
>> >>> [16:16] <stenyak> (or viceversa.. the new peer takes 10 seconds to
>> >>>discover
>> >>> the participants)
>> >>> [...]
>> >>> [16:25] <stenyak> this could shed some light:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_hash_table#Algorithms_for_overl
>> >>>ay_networks
>> >>> [19:06] <stenyak> http://dsn.tm.kit.edu/english/2936.php
>> >>> *...4) Routing **p2p **messages/events in a pure P2P system (part 5):*
>> >>> [21:03] <josephg> [...] For now, I want wave to be p2p in the same way
>> >>>that
>> >>> git is p2p.
>> >>> [21:04] <josephg> that is, I want the core algorithms & data
>> >>>structures to
>> >>> use P2P-capable algorithms, and probably the wave servers will do p2p
>> >>> between themselves (this is easy because they'll all be both named and
>> >>> accessable)
>> >>> [21:06] <josephg> as for client-to-client p2p, there's a few options
>> >>> depending on what kind of use cases we want to support - but I want to
>> >>> worry about getting the algorithms p2p-capable first. If you're keen
>> >>>to set
>> >>> up an anonymous, distributed wave system over a DHT - well, I want to
>> >>>first
>> >>> make that possible
>> >>> [21:15] <josephg> .... and as for ipv6, network admins _love_ NAT now
>> >>>that
>> >>> we have it
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> *5) Implementing "undo": invertibility, tombstones, edge cases, TP2:*
>> >>> [00:17] <alown> I am not sure how an 'undo stack' is going to work (at
>> >>>all)
>> >>> with federation...
>> >>> [00:18] <josephg> well, you just do undo at the application level
>> >>> [00:19] <josephg> "submit op which inserts text" ... later "submit op
>> >>>which
>> >>> removes text"
>> >>> [00:19] <josephg> you don't need OT for that.
>> >>> [00:20] <josephg> I imagine like, a semantic undo. In the client you
>> >>>can
>> >>> imagine making an undo op (which might not necessarily rollback an
>> >>> operation (because of tombstones and all that))
>> >>> [00:20] <josephg> ... but would seem that way as far as the user is
>> >>> concerned
>> >>> [00:21] <josephg> then if the user hits ctrl+z, you can transform that
>> >>> operation up to the current version and apply it
>> >>> [00:21] <josephg> - the fact that its an undo isn't really relevant.
>> >>> [00:21] <josephg> the bad thing about losing invertability is doing
>> >>> playback
>> >>> [00:21] <josephg> - because you can't scrub back through time
>> >>> [00:21] <alown> But you have all the operations since the start, so
>> >>>you can
>> >>> play forward at least?
>> >>> [00:23] <josephg> yeah exactly.
>> >>> [00:23] <josephg> ... and make like, keyframes of the document
>> >>> [00:23] <josephg> - and play forward from them or something.
>> >>> [00:23] <alown> Hmm, so you can do the step-back without recalculating
>> >>>the
>> >>> entire document?
>> >>> [00:24] <alown> I don't really like the idea of then having another
>> >>> datastructure to have to pass around...
>> >>> [00:24] <josephg> right - if you have a snapshot at version 1000, and
>> >>>the
>> >>> user is looking at 1010 and they try to step back to 1009, you can just
>> >>> replay ops 1001-1009 on that version 1000 snapshot
>> >>> [00:24] <alown> What was the problem with invertible operations (I
>> >>>don't
>> >>> understand OT enough yet to be able to properly comment on that side).
>> >>> [00:25] <alown> (Other than it confuses people?)
>> >>> [00:25] <josephg> hahaha actually people seem to love invertability
>> >>> [00:25] <josephg> I don't know why.
>> >>> [00:25] <josephg> I've been trying to remove it from sharejs, and
>> >>>everyone
>> >>> gets sad.
>> >>> [00:26] <josephg> the problem is that if I make an op which deletes the
>> >>> whole document (version 100, say) then I undo that operation
>> >>> [00:26] <josephg> and you insert in the middle of the document at
>> >>>version
>> >>> 100, then your op gets transformed to do that insert at the start of
>> >>>the
>> >>> document instead at version 101 (because the content has disappeared)
>> >>> [00:26] <josephg> and it never goes back to the middle of the document.
>> >>> [00:27] <josephg> so, with tombstones you can get around that by
>> >>>having a
>> >>> 'resurrect' operation
>> >>> [00:27] <josephg> (so deleting the whole document turns the whole
>> >>>document
>> >>> into tombstones, then we can resurrect them all again in the inverse)
>> >>> [00:28] <josephg> but you can't invert an insert - because deleting
>> >>>leaves
>> >>> the tombstone there
>> >>> [00:28] <josephg> and if you have a 'real delete' operation, then yeah,
>> >>> you're back in the hole
>> >>> [00:28] <josephg> also, with wave in particular, inverting is really
>> >>> complicated
>> >>> [00:29] <josephg> - see, if the wave says "<annotation bold:true>blah
>> >>> blah<annotation bold:false> not bolded"
>> >>> [00:29] <josephg> then if you insert at the end of the "blah blah",
>> >>>it'll
>> >>> automatically get bolded.
>> >>> [00:30] <josephg> ... so if the text isn't bolded, and then you bold it
>> >>> while I insert at the end of the text, you need to make sure my text
>> >>> _isn't_ bolded or something
>> >>> [00:31] <josephg> .... and yeah, I can't remember - but there's these
>> >>> horror cases that I remember kept me from sleeping when I tried to
>> >>> reimplement wave's OT code in C
>> >>> [00:31] <alown> hmm
>> >>> [00:31] <josephg> and it would have been fine if it wasn't invertible.
>> >>> Well, at least it would have been tollerable.
>> >>> [00:33] <josephg> So yeah. Conclusion: You can make invertability
>> >>>work, but
>> >>> its kind of a bitch, and you can't make it work for TP2
>> >>> [00:33] <josephg> which means it won't work if we're federating
>> >>> [00:33] <alown> How are we hacking around that currently then?
>> >>> [00:33] <josephg> well, we don't do TP2
>> >>> [00:34] <josephg> remember, federation just uses a bad version of the
>> >>> current client-server protocol
>> >>> [00:34] <josephg> - arranged in a tree of servers
>> >>> [00:34] * alown goes and looks up which one TP2 was again
>> >>> [00:35] <josephg> ... its the one that says you don't need a canonical
>> >>> ordering of operations
>> >>> [00:35] <josephg> sharejs and wave both use the server to pick the
>> >>>order of
>> >>> operations (based on which order they reach the server)
>> >>> [00:35] <josephg> and then they use incrementing version numbers based
>> >>>on
>> >>> that order
>> >>> [00:35] <alown> ah yep.
>> >>> [00:35] <josephg> -> for p2p, that doesn't work because you don't have
>> >>>a
>> >>> centralized server, and anyone can send messages to anyone
>> >>> [00:36] <josephg> and yeah, you need TP2 for that (which sort of says
>> >>>you
>> >>> can apply ops from 3 different sites in any order and it still works)
>> >>> [00:37] <josephg> - and apparently someone proved that if you make it
>> >>>work
>> >>> for 3 sites, it works for any number of sites
>> >>> [00:43] <alown> Anyhow, I can see leaving inversion out for
>> >>>simplicity, but
>> >>> don't yet understand why it can't be made to work with TP2.
>> >>> [00:59] <alown> Hmm. Seen 'A Sequence Transformation Algorithm for
>> >>> Supporting Cooperative work on Mobile Devices'?
>> >>> [01:02] <josephg>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/groups/connect/cscw_10/do
>> >>>cs/p159.pdf
>> >>> ?
>> >>> [01:15] <alown> The main feature is its use of storing local/remote
>> >>> operations and processing them much later than receipt time.
>> >>> [01:17] <alown> ABT satisfies TP1+2, so looks like this should(?)
>> >>> [01:19] <josephg> need to read it
>> >>> [01:19] <josephg> ... I'll go through it later
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> *6) Usability of a pure p2p system in Real Life (tm):*
>> >>> [12:13] <alown> We also don't know if storing ops in a DHT is efficent
>> >>> enough for our use case...
>> >>> [12:14] <stenyak> in any case, let's say i fire up my wavep2p android
>> >>> client and want to check for any new waves
>> >>> [12:14] <stenyak> i definitely won't put up with a wait of 30 seconds
>> >>>when
>> >>> i have "this damn fast 4g connection!" in my cellphone
>> >>> [12:14] <stenyak> i mean, that's the point of view of six pack joe
>> >>> [12:14] <stenyak> and joe is definitely right..
>> >>> [12:15] * alown thinks of the hours it took to download the bitcoin
>> >>> blockchain from the p2p system
>> >>> [12:15] <stenyak> or browse through freenet, or whatever... its painly
>> >>>slow
>> >>> [12:16] <stenyak> in the end, i think that most users won't be running
>> >>>a
>> >>> full blown peer, but will be relying on an external server instead
>> >>> [12:16] <stenyak> i.e. nobody runs their own email servers nowadays
>> >>> [12:16] <stenyak> and the same can happen with wave
>> >>> [12:16] <alown> Should a mobile client be doing the full p2p
>> >>>federation, or
>> >>> simply talking to a server which does it...
>> >>> [12:16] <stenyak> the few who decide to run a full-blown wave peer,
>> >>>should
>> >>> be aware of the problems
>> >>> [12:17] <alown> So, this should be less of a problem since the only
>> >>>nodes
>> >>> doing p2p will be proper full-time connected servers?
>> >>> [12:17] <stenyak> the thing is, we can assume most people wont fire up
>> >>> their own xmpp server, but go for jabber.org account
>> >>> [12:17] <stenyak> and the same thing will presumably happen for wave,
>> >>> simply because it's easier to do
>> >>> [12:18] <stenyak> which doesn't pervent me from running my own
>> >>>full-blown
>> >>> wave server
>> >>> [12:18] <stenyak> but that's a use case in which the user knows the
>> >>> limitations
>> >>> [12:19] <stenyak> [...] you and i will run several full-blown wave
>> >>>peers at
>> >>> home, at our parent's house, or whatever, but we'll know and accept the
>> >>> problems
>> >>> [12:19] <stenyak> i think that's the way to think about the problem
>> >>> [12:19] <stenyak> heck, most people use github for permanent [git]
>> >>> connectivity ;-)
>> >>> [12:19] <stenyak> instead of opening ports to their laptop in their lan
>> >>> [12:19] <stenyak> and those are the tech-savvy people...
>> >>> [12:20] <alown> So, we have a p2p system between wave servers and
>> >>>superwave
>> >>> servers, with clients connecting to the server rather than doing the
>> >>>p2p
>> >>> itself...
>> >>> [12:20] <stenyak> i'm not saying it's the way we should do it. i'm
>> >>>saying
>> >>> that's the way it most probably will pan out, because it's already
>> >>> hapennign in 100% of the existing p2p protocols i know of
>> >>> [12:20] <alown> Hmm...
>> >>> [12:21] <stenyak> so we should plan for that instead of a theoretical
>> >>>pure
>> >>> p2p world
>> >>> [12:21] <stenyak> if we assume there's servers like github, bitbucket
>> >>>and
>> >>> sourceforge, then suddently most of the problems go away, while still
>> >>>not
>> >>> preventing from people to run fully p2p if they want
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> *7) Comparison with BitTorrent and P2P-TV technologies:*
>> >>> [12:21] <alown> BT doesn't have huge servers (and with magnet has
>> >>>actually
>> >>> move in the opposite direction).
>> >>> [12:21] <stenyak> BT has no real-time needs
>> >>> [12:22] <stenyak> that's why they can afford DHT
>> >>> [12:22] <stenyak> dht could be used for simulating a forum-like
>> >>>discussion
>> >>> in wave. but we can't force that restriction from the server
>> >>> [12:22] <stenyak> (i say forum-like, because people don't expect
>> >>>reaction
>> >>> within seconds there)
>> >>> [12:23] <alown> How did iplayer do its live p2p broadcastinºg?
>> >>> [12:23] * stenyak googles what iplayer is
>> >>> [12:23] <alown> Sorry, BBC iPlayer is their TV-over-the-internet
>> >>>system.
>> >>> [12:24] <alown> Originally it used a p2p system, but got lots of
>> >>>negative
>> >>> press (because of assosciation with BT since it used p2p), so it now
>> >>>uses a
>> >>> centralized system instead. (And their bandwidth costs are much
>> >>>higher).
>> >>> [...]
>> >>> [12:25] <stenyak> i seem to recall other [p2p] tv clients
>> >>> [12:25] <stenyak>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> http://wiki.xbmc.org/index.php?title=HOW-TO:Play_free_P2P_(peer-to-peer)
>> >>>_online_streaming_TV
>> >>> [...]
>> >>> [12:26] <alown> Found a paper titled "RT-P2P: A Scalable Real-Time
>> >>> Peer-to-Peer System with Probabilistic Timing Assurances" (google for
>> >>>it)
>> >>> [12:28] <alown> Lookt at the paper I mentioned. It relies on 'super
>> >>>nodes'
>> >>> to enable it to keep low latencies...
>> >>> [...]
>> >>> [12:27] <stenyak> but i'd be wary of using this (p2p tv) as an
>> >>>inspiration.
>> >>> i know there's delay of 10-30 seconds from my TV Formula1 image to the
>> >>> telemetry that comes through HTTP from formula1.com website. this is
>> >>> regular TV, and they don't care about 30 seconds of lag
>> >>> [12:27] <stenyak> the only real problem of p2p tv is avoiding much
>> >>>jitter
>> >>> [12:27] <stenyak> as long as the stream arrives and is viewable, a
>> >>>delay of
>> >>> a minute doesn't matter that much
>> >>> [12:28] <alown> True.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> *8) Identifying participants (part 1):*
>> >>> [12:09] <alown> I am also no longer sure what an 'account' should look
>> >>> like, since it has no reason to be stuck to a domain...
>> >>> [12:10] <stenyak> current wave discovery works by using the domain
>> >>>name of
>> >>> the email-address-like list of participants
>> >>> [12:10] <stenyak> but here we're talking about hashes, public keys or
>> >>> whatever
>> >>> [12:10] <stenyak> which do not (necessarily) point to an particular
>> >>>IP:PORT
>> >>> or whatever
>> >>> [12:10] <alown> Exactly the problem...
>> >>> *...8) Identifying participants (part 2):*
>> >>> [12:33] <stenyak> would it make sense that, while some participants are
>> >>> identified by a pubkey (or whatever), many of them could be identified
>> >>>by a
>> >>> user@domain address, with which any peer can quickly locate
>> supernodes?
>> >>> [12:33] <stenyak> i mean some kind of dual "pubkey and optional domain
>> >>> email-like addr" for the participants list
>> >>> [12:34] <stenyak> the optional part being essential in the broader
>> >>>internet
>> >>> [12:34] <alown> Isn't that exactly what using Mozilla Persona would do
>> >>>(map
>> >>> user@domain to some public-key we can use)
>> >>> [12:34] <alown> Removing the need for us to have to roll yet-another
>> >>> authentication system.
>> >>> [...]
>> >>> [12:38] <stenyak> the idea would be that, for a person to be a
>> >>>participant
>> >>> in a wave, you *require* his pubkey. optionally, you may have acquired
>> >>>ths
>> >>> pubkey by asking "wave.google.com" about the user "joe", getting his
>> >>> pubkey
>> >>> as a result.
>> >>> [12:39] <stenyak> and now that you have the pubkey and one of many
>> >>>possible
>> >>> email-like addresses (in this case j...@wave.google.com), then you can
>> >>>use
>> >>> the email-like address for displaying in the UI
>> >>> [12:39] <stenyak> this means that, whoever wants to run pure p2p peers,
>> >>> will have to give his pubkey
>> >>> [12:39] <stenyak> and whoever uses the more traditional style, can
>> >>>simply
>> >>> give his email-like addr
>> >>> [12:39] <stenyak> and the participants list will show a simple
>> >>>email-like
>> >>> address most of the time
>> >>> [12:40] <alown> Do we then allow anyone to 'log in' to any wave server
>> >>> running at any domain, since it should no-longer make any difference
>> >>>where
>> >>> they are in the network...
>> >>> [12:41] <stenyak> yes, that's needed for world-wide-public waves,
>> >>>which is
>> >>> equivalent to a read-only forum on the net
>> >>> [12:41] <stenyak> then there could be server-public waves, which is
>> >>> equivalent to requiring sign-in to view a forum (and coincidentally the
>> >>> current implementation of public waves in WiaB, right?)
>> >>> [12:43] * alown has never tested what happens with public waves in the
>> >>> current federation system
>> >>> *...8) Identifying participants (part 3):
>> >>> *
>> >>> [21:35] <josephg> - Who is a user? If a user is sten...@example.com,
>> >>>then
>> >>> we can put a server at example.com and it can hold operations for you
>> >>> [21:36] <josephg> ie, if I add you to a wave, my computer (or my wave
>> >>> server or something) can send a message to example.com to say "Yo,
>> >>>here's
>> >>> some ops you should know about"
>> >>> [21:36] <josephg> that would be similar to a mailbox
>> >>> [21:37] <josephg> ... and it would work pretty well. Bear in mind that
>> >>> there's no reason operations have to go through the wave server at
>> >>> example.com - if we're both on a LAN together, we could discover one
>> >>> another through DNS service discovery and send ops directly
>> >>> [21:37] <josephg> .. without going through our respective wave servers
>> >>> [21:38] <josephg> However - if our identities aren't tied to a domain
>> >>>(eg
>> >>> bitcoin), then we'll need to use a dht or something.
>> >>> [21:42] <stenyak> the conclussion i've arrived at is that "users"
>> >>> ultimately are a publickey (for which they have the privatekey). this
>> >>>is
>> >>> inconvenient for people to "add you to a wave", so a possibility would
>> >>>be
>> >>> to have a friendlyname=>pubkey server converter. this way people can
>> >>>add "
>> >>> sten...@example.com", by first finding out what the pubkey for
>> >>> sten...@example.com really is
>> >>> [21:43] <stenyak> the friendlyname would be optional, and in LAN
>> >>> environments you could directly use the pubkey (instead of the friendly
>> >>> name)
>> >>> [21:43] <josephg> I think people will be more than happy to use a
>> >>>frienly
>> >>> name in a lan environment too
>> >>> [21:43] <stenyak> discovery in a local network could be done with
>> >>>bonjour
>> >>> or something too (not just dns)
>> >>> [21:44] <josephg> I <3 dns-sd
>> >>> [21:44] <stenyak> [...] maybe they already have a contact list (read,
>> >>>list
>> >>> of friendlyname<>pubkey equivalences) they can use in the UI (even if
>> >>>the
>> >>> underlying system will use pubkeys anyway)
>> >>> [21:44] <stenyak> and by contact list, i really mean a cache of some
>> >>>sort
>> >>> [21:45] <stenyak> (not some specific, complex roster system)
>> >>> [21:45] <josephg> and you can do friendlyname -> pubkey really easily
>> >>>by
>> >>> just storing the pubkey on the user's domain
>> >>> [21:45] <josephg> so, have the example.com webserver host
>> >>> https://example.com/.wellknown/stenyak
>> >>> [21:46] <josephg> = your public key.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> *9) P2P anonymity (peers that want to anonymously lurk in a wave) (part
>> >>> 1):*
>> >>> [12:48] <stenyak> by the way, what about non-participants that simply
>> >>>want
>> >>> to lurk a wave?
>> >>> [12:49] <stenyak> e.g. i'm given a wave uri
>> >>> (wave://look_at_these_kittens_wave), and want to view it
>> >>> [12:49] <alown> Whilst a wave is public, as soon as they 'read' the
>> >>>wave,
>> >>> they would have a metadata wavelet created, so would become a
>> >>>participant
>> >>> (if read-only).
>> >>> [12:50] <stenyak> and from then on, whenever the wave changes, someone
>> >>>will
>> >>> try to make the change reach the peers with my privkey
>> >>> [12:50] <stenyak> supposedly..
>> >>> *...9) P2P anonymity (peers that want to anonymously lurk in a wave)
>> >>>(part
>> >>> 2):*
>> >>> [21:18] <josephg> stenyak: interesting point about people who want to
>> >>>not
>> >>> participate but follow a wave anyway - its really bad if other people
>> >>>can
>> >>> tell that they're there (assuming the wave is public).
>> >>> [21:18] <josephg> I guess we just need to make sure that the metadata
>> >>>wave
>> >>> is invisible, and then its ok..
>> >>> [21:21] <stenyak> invisible.. to what peer/s? surely those that are
>> >>> transmitting deltas to the lurkers will need to know they exist?
>> >>> [21:21] <stenyak> (maybe some of the algorithms behind freenet can help
>> >>> with this)
>> >>> [21:21] <stenyak> (or even TOR)
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> *10) Encryption of waves:*
>> >>> [21:47] <josephg> for waves themselves, I'm imagining giving each wave
>> >>>an
>> >>> AES key
>> >>> [21:47] <josephg> then storing an encrypted version of the key for each
>> >>> participant on the wave
>> >>> [21:48] <josephg> .... anyway, that way anyone who has the AES key can
>> >>>read
>> >>> all ops on the wave
>> >>> [21:48] <josephg> and can participate (because they can encrypt ops
>> >>>for the
>> >>> wave)
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> *11) Addition and removal of participants, and their ability to read
>> >>>past
>> >>> and future wave versions/deltas:*
>> >>> [21:48] <stenyak> what about removing a user from a wave?
>> >>> [21:49] <josephg> worst case, we can just make a new key and re-add
>> >>> everyone using the new key
>> >>> [21:49] <josephg> and keep around the old key too
>> >>> [21:49] <josephg> so people can still read the old ops as well
>> >>> [21:49] <stenyak> the user can access their browser cache for all we
>> >>>care..
>> >>> if you ever read it, there will be ways to do it. "download now
>> >>>wave-spy to
>> >>> read waves you were removed from!"
>> >>> [21:49] <stenyak> so providing an official way sounds better
>> >>> [21:50] <stenyak> the AES key could change at any point in time, e.g.
>> >>> whenever a new users is added (to prevent them accessing the history),
>> >>>or
>> >>> deleting them (to prevent them from reading future history)
>> >>> [22:32] <josephg> um - in wave, we let new users see the whole history
>> >>> [22:40] <stenyak> but that use case could be desirable, right? and if
>> >>>we
>> >>> support modification/versioning of the AES key, we might as well allow
>> >>>that
>> >>> too? the equivalent in email world would be to forward an email,
>> >>>removing
>> >>> the existing quotes
>> >>> [23:17] <josephg> Yep definitely.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Saludos,
>> >>> Bruno González
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> Jabber: stenyak AT gmail.com
>> >>> http://www.stenyak.com
>> >>>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
