Brad Chapman wrote: > > > (note: the transported data will be encrypted with the DL password > as key.) > > Man, Jarl, you are awesome! This just helped me figure out a problem I > was having with secure password storage in the dl. Thanks! What sort of encryption are we talking about? > > OK, so this means will will have a system that is like the unix > > user\group system, only groups have passwords too in VSH! > > This sounds like a good plan to me. Jeff, does this jive with your > security ideas? I just have that one question about group passwords. Will users be able to log in to a group without logging in as a user? > > 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' (?) > > Okay, I think I understand your point, although I'm not sure what you > mean by login level... I think he means the user is granted a higher level of access, being able to tap into other DL's...directly? Doesn't BL->BL communication occur as BL->DL->Internet->DL->BL? Then, what will BL->DL->Internet->DL->DL->BL provide, other than additional access? > This makes my head hurt :-) I think we should keep it simple for the > time being. I think the only idea about of one dl being able to log > into another was so one dl could control the other (ie. you could > control the gnome gui display using the (not yet developed) speech > recognition user interface. Am I right on this Jeff, or did you have > bigger ideas of two dls connecting? Okay, now I'm confused. I thought we were going to have multiple fronts for each DL. Or are you talking about one front per DL? For Loci, I was planning on the multiple fronts being all local to the middle. > > Maybe this new field of the uriS will make this possible? > > so it will be like this (simplyfied): > > struct uriS { > > long instaceID; > > long groupID; //aint the same as the unix 'group' !! > > long subnetID; > > long nodeID; > > }; > > > > Giving any lead? > > Okay, so a group is "smaller" than a instanceID, and groups subnets > and nodes and not users. Am I following you correctly? Can we get a clear definition of a 'group' then? Jeff -- +----------------------------------+ | J.W. Bizzaro | | | | http://bioinformatics.org/~jeff/ | | | | BIOINFORMATICS.ORG | | The Open Lab | | | | http://bioinformatics.org/ | +----------------------------------+