25 Sep
2020
25 Sep
'20
2:33 a.m.
On 2020-09-25 01:38, Paul Koning wrote:
I'm sortof ok with that, but the problem is that you need to note it for
each circuit, based on what the other side prefers. It would be nicer if
possible to handle a bit more automatically.
But I don't really see, at the moment, how to do that. I was thinking
about some special pattern to the circuit name, but that fails for the
same reason - it's what the other side thinks we need to know, not our own.
Ah. So you just add an implementation specific parameter. Yes, of
course, that always works. But for any system not knowing them, they
will show up slightly funny, but perfectly readable. I thought maybe
there was already some field defined/existing.
NICE is otherwise a fairly good protocol.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
On Sep 24, 2020, at 6:23 PM, Johnny Billquist
<bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
Hi.
On 2020-09-24 23:15, Paul Koning wrote:
Peter suggests a configuration option. That's easy as a global setting, and just
about as easy on a per circuit basis. Gentlepeople,
Currently the details of what PyDECnet circuits connect to are not displayed. So you can
see that a Multinet circuit is up and the other end is node 42.73, but you don't see
the IP addresses or the like.
When things are working that's fine; when they are broken it might be helpful to see
what something is trying to talk to.
On the other hand, hiding IP addresses is arguably a security feature. So I have this
question:
1. Should the addressing info (basically, what's in the --device config argument) be
shown in the PyDECnet web interface?
2. Should the addressing info be visible via NCP / NML?
The difference is that #1 can be limited to be local only, if you use an internal address
for the web service. That's what I do for my nodes except for the mapper, though
perhaps there isn't a strong argument why it should be so restrictive. #2, on the
other hand, is visible to all HECnet users assuming you haven't disabled NML in your
config settings.
I'd be interested in comments. Am I too concerned about hiding information, or is it
sensible to be cautious?
Interesting question. For myself, I certainly do not care or worry. (I sortof encourage
the probing of Mim and Magica, since that helps iron out any bugs in my TCP/IP.)
But I do want to respect if others would want to be more protective of their information.
So it becomes a little tricky.
It would be nice if individuals could tell how they would like it on an individual basis.
But I don't have any good suggestion at this time on how to do it. Finally, can
you really stuff that information into the circuit responses? Are there some free-text
field available for this? (Doubt I'll do anything in RSX right now, but if possible,
it could maybe be something I'd look into eventually...)
Yes, no problem. That's why there are implementation specific parameter code ranges
available. There is one in use already by PyDECnet, circuit counter 3900, "Seconds
since last circuit up", a 16 bit counter. Parameters like this can go in that range
as well, and thanks to the NICE protocol encoding the data format is explicitly stated.
So strings will show up as text, and integers as integers.