From a68d4705b113d725c116de110a4def54908e2005 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ilya_Shlyakhter Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 17:13:00 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Added a comment --- .../comment_28_44e8d93b1f0a88c36543438d6e33d702._comment | 9 +++++++++ 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/backends/comment_28_44e8d93b1f0a88c36543438d6e33d702._comment diff --git a/doc/backends/comment_28_44e8d93b1f0a88c36543438d6e33d702._comment b/doc/backends/comment_28_44e8d93b1f0a88c36543438d6e33d702._comment new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..79ee17403b --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/backends/comment_28_44e8d93b1f0a88c36543438d6e33d702._comment @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +[[!comment format=mdwn + username="Ilya_Shlyakhter" + avatar="http://cdn.libravatar.org/avatar/1647044369aa7747829c38b9dcc84df0" + subject="comment 28" + date="2018-11-01T17:12:59Z" + content=""" +\"The risk that the content at an url might change varies over time or something like that, so I think it makes sense to treat URL keys as specially unstable.\" -- but, if I understand correctly, a URL key does not actually represent a URL? Rather, a URL can be attached to _any_ key, and if the contents of some URLs claimed by a remote is unstable, such remotes should be marked as untrusted; while if the contents of a URL key is stored in a trusted remote, that contents is not unstable. But URL and WORM keys are both \"unstable\" in that their contents can't be verified. +[[todo/alternate_keys_for_same_content] could mitigate that. +"""]]