Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[meta] Future of the Cipher #63

Open
rt2zz opened this issue Mar 13, 2018 · 3 comments
Open

[meta] Future of the Cipher #63

rt2zz opened this issue Mar 13, 2018 · 3 comments

Comments

@rt2zz
Copy link
Member

rt2zz commented Mar 13, 2018

cipher is getting long, especially for update which has almost double the payload (need to encode bother the old and new alias). Our options to shorten it include some combination of the following:

  1. compress the result
  2. switch credential type codes to be integers
  3. do not use JSON.stringify, instead implement a custom serializer
  4. use a more compact encryption
  5. store alias requests in the db along with a "shortcode", send the shortcode to the channel rather than a cipher.

Additionally I am pretty sure we want to salt the cipher which will actually add to the size. - that is unless we go with option 5.

@rt2zz
Copy link
Member Author

rt2zz commented Mar 13, 2018

moving discussion from #62 (comment)

@rt2zz
Copy link
Member Author

rt2zz commented Mar 13, 2018

5 does seem to hit all of the requirements, my only concern being that it increase the moving parts of the system.

Option 6 is actually to use a url shortener, which incidentally branch provides...

@cjcaj
Copy link
Contributor

cjcaj commented Mar 14, 2018

I vote for a URL shortener

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants