[Freedombox-discuss] CCC Meeting Notes

[Samuel Rose]

Hi Isaac. Great stuff below! A few short replies follow:

On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Isaac Wilder
<isaac at freenetworkmovement.org> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hello All,
>
> This is Isaac Wilder, from the Free Network Foundation. I convened a
> meeting at Chaos Communication Camp a couple of days ago, in order to
> talk about FreedomBox, FreedomNode, and Free Network Architectures. I
> told those in attendance that I would type up my notes from the
> meeting, and send them to the list.
>
>
> To start, I presented what I saw as a workable architecture: several
> protocol daemons connected by a 'graph' or 'identity' manager that
> handles access control. We came up with the following list of
> essential daemons, in approximate order of priority:
> 1)HTTP
> 2)XMPP
> 3)SIP
> 4)IMAP
> 5)TOR
> 6)NMTP
>

(I think you are talking about NNTP here?)

What if the architecture were designed in a way that allowed
practically any protocol to be plugged into the architecture (yet you
still start with a limited set of protocols that are supported just as
you list above)?

I think this could be done by having a request to next available node,
asking what protocols are available, and when a match is found, and
other design criteria are met, data is moved. This is a fundamental
property of the way that most organisms communicate. First a message
is propagated to see who is listening, and who can understand. The
initiator then waits for a response. A network of nodes that support
various protocols could mimic this behavior: "I have data in XMMP
protocol, what other nodes are available and support this protocol?"



> As far as daemon selection goes, there was (general) agreement that we
> should use Apache for HTTP (despite its weight), Prosody for XMPP, and
> Yate for SIP.
>
> We also discussed UI, stressing its paramount importance to the
> success or failure of the endeavor. The idea of having the user
> configure and interface with the box via chatt (XMPP chat) was
> suggested. There's also always the fallback position of a web GUI.
> Still, many felt that the chat idea has great potential.
>

It's definitely interesting.

Will reply to the rest later if I can scrape up the time! :)

-- 
--
Sam Rose
Hollymead Capital Partners, LLC
Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
email: samuel.rose at gmail.com
http://hollymeadcapital.com
http://p2pfoundation.net
http://futureforwardinstitute.com
http://socialmediaclassroom.com

"The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human
ambition." - Carl Sagan