At Tue, 18 Oct 2005 14:27:56 -0400, "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[A broken protocol snipped] > I believe that the only possible protocol that could be correct is for > all object servers to return by way of CapServer. I agree. This is exactly what I proposed in my talk in Dijon. The server maps a revocable copy to the cap server. The cap server maps another revocable copy to each client. > In practice, this > makes locally trusted CapServers impossible, because a general-purpose > server cannot make assumptions about how the objects it creates will > later be transferred. I agree again. Server and client must agree on the same cap server, which they both must trust. Note: Not sure if me agreeing helps anybody. I am dead tired (I beat Jonathan's four hours "last nights sleep" by one hour![1]). But in light of lots of confusion and back-and-forth, some people may find it helpful to see some agreement once in a while :) Thanks, Marcus [1] This is not a contest I want to win. Don't get any funny ideas. :) _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
