jarl van katwijk wrote: > > The only problem with remote DL's is that the (local) root DL must know about > that remote one in order to authoritized it. Hmmm. So, DL do authorization, but the connection between remote DL's and the local BL is direct? > OK, so this means will will have a system that is like the unix user\group > system, > only groups have passwords too in VSH! > > group ~~ BL level (DL id & DL password give access to whole set of subnets > and nodes that are childs of that DL) > user ~~ DL level (??? id & ??? password give access to subset of the > subnets and nodes that are childs of that DL) I'm not sure I understand why group is BL level and user is DL level. And, why would you have a group password? The reason Unix doesn't have group passwords is because everyone must log in as a user anyway. Are you saying someone can have group access without logging in as a user? > Yeppo! > The root DL will only be there to grant others access and do some very-very-very > basic subnet processing. > The most work will spawn out of other DL's. Okay...I think I understand. > No, they have access to the nodes created with THEIR DLid. > And yes, this makes it possible to have multiple logins on the same DLid. > To get access to another DL's nodes, use login 'level' (?) 2. > We should therefor deside if it can be possible for a DL to login to another DL > and to a BL at the same time. I didn't though about the consequences yet.. You mean in addition to logging into the root DL? Cheers. Jeff -- +----------------------------------+ | J.W. Bizzaro | | | | http://bioinformatics.org/~jeff/ | | | | BIOINFORMATICS.ORG | | The Open Lab | | | | http://bioinformatics.org/ | +----------------------------------+