On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 08:25:43AM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>     Ivan> but it is still rather hard bound to ip.
> 
> incredibly lax.  It should just require an abstract notion of node
> (client or server) identity.  And a lot of wrist grease for each port

Yes.

>     Ivan> In a sence it is bound to dns as well, as there is no other
>     Ivan> global distributed directory service to rely on...
> 
> Are you implying there should be more than one global distributed
> directory service?  I don't see why.

No, we do not need another one, not right now. But if we'd go for other
transport than IP, or if dns for some reason begins malfunctioning, we might
want to have a choice...
Of course, once the choice is made, we do not want to make any changes,
our name space is built on dns and a change would be extremely painful.
On the other side, as long as a new service can embrace all the existing
Coda realm dns names, it would be ok.

Cheers,
--
Ivan