Library 2000 Internal memo 01 Signature-based names should allow multiple signatures. Names built on object signatures should be able to contain multiple signatures from different schemes, all explicitly tagged. Permits multiple schemes to coexist gracefully. Cost is small. Adding an additional constraint, even a very inexpensive one like byte length, greatly increases the difficulty of someone creating a fraudulent object with identical signatures.
Services restrict certain operations to name sets with particular trustworthyness.
A storage service is willing to provide an object given a name with only a CRC sum, but is not willing to use such a signature as a guarantor of correctness in replication. As the work function of md5 degrades gradually or dramatically, names will come to contain other signatures as well, and preferences in name set signatures will evolve. Feb 17 - Created.