On Wed, 20 Oct 1999, Simon Richter wrote:
> > [Excursion into implementation: you want a local /etc/facilities, which
> > can also be implemented with a NIS map, an LDAP service or anything that
> > can empower it like /etc/services].
>
> [Excursion into RFC writing: It is up to the system operator to ensure
> that the protocol used for distributing /etc/facilities is not subject to
> spoofing]
>
I was not so much concerned with the implementation of the distribution,
but merely with showing the analogy to /etc/services.
The need for such a system comes from the bandwidth you can save by
replacing a lengthy string with a well known number. Nothing really new.
> > On time stamps:
> > Within the local machine, timestamps are probably no big deal. On the air,
> > I assume we agree by now that a sending machine includes its own timestamp
> > (however accurate that may be) in a message. I could imagine that the
> > stamp is enclosed in sqare brackets, and when multiple hops are traversed,
> > they could add their own stamp within the brackets, separated by a comma:
> > "[t1,t2,t3]". The time stamp format should be fixed. And Y2K safe :-)
>
> The hosts should also add their name, I think. The time could be about
> anything in GMT or local time, but should always tell which timezone the
> server is in (including DST information, of course).
>
Well, this again is a bandwidth issue. I still think that time(2) provides
the most useable format, maybe with an added fraction. At least for inter
machine communication. I doubt that the host names on the way are that
important. With several hops you will often know which host is where. If
not, then optionally add it (separated with a colon) to each timestamp.
Optionally.
Volker
