Retire one TODO and add another.

[quix0rs-apt-p2p.git] / TODO

diff --git a/TODO b/TODO
index b4951933a627a2d6a5b4d47e4f561401aaa4e188..b0724b4bd35671f916b35b39b250cdcdbec93411 100644 (file)
--- a/TODO
+++ b/TODO
@@ -1,10 +1,3 @@
-Consider what happens when we are the closest node.
-
-In some of the actions it is unclear what happens when we are one of the
-closest nodes to the target key. Do we store values that we publish
-ourself?
-
-
 Add all cache files to the database.
 
 All files in the cache should be added to the database, so that they can
@@ -47,3 +40,45 @@ originally provided the piece is probably at fault, since he is now
 providing a later piece. This doesn't work if the differing piece is the 
 first piece, in which case it is downloaded from a 3rd peer, with 
 consensus revealing the misbehaving peer.
+
+
+Consider storing deltas of packages.
+
+Instead of downloading full package files when a previous version of
+the same package is available, peers could request a delta of the
+package to the previous version. This would only be done if the delta
+is significantly (>50%) smaller than the full package, and is not too
+large (absolutely). A peer that has a new package and an old one would
+add a list of deltas for the package to the value stored in the DHT.
+The delta information would specify the old version (by hash), the
+size of the delta, and the hash of the delta. A peer that has the same
+old package could then download the delta from the peer by requesting
+the hash of the delta. Alternatively, very small deltas could be
+stored directly in the DHT.
+
+
+Consider tracking security issues with packages.
+
+Since sharing information with others about what packages you have
+downloaded (and probably installed) is a possible security
+vulnerability, it would be advantageous to not share that information
+for packages that have known security vulnerabilities. This would
+require some way of obtaining a list of which packages (and versions)
+are vulnerable, which is not currently available.
+
+
+Consider adding peer characteristics to the DHT.
+
+Bad peers could be indicated in the DHT by adding a new value that is
+the NOT of their ID (so they are guaranteed not to store it) indicating
+information about the peer. This could be bad votes on the peer, as
+otherwise a peer could add good info about itself.
+
+
+Consider adding pieces to the DHT instead of files.
+
+Instead of adding file hashes to the DHT, only piece hashes could be
+added. This would allow a peer to upload to other peers while it is
+still downloading the rest of the file. It is not clear that this is
+needed, since peer's will not be uploading and downloading ery much of
+the time.