I don't believe its a non-sequitur because its architecturally addressing
some of the space of the problem and intrudes into the API without
requiring a name. The implication all activity in the path between
communicating entities require names to be used seems to me to be somewhat
moot. I used it as an example to discuss two specific methods of dealing
with the question of how different application spaces cope with these
situations. Shims and wraps are common.
The question(s) were posed 'how would ssh..' or 'how would ftp...' and I
replied, contextually how I feel other people have approached the problem.
What I took from their approach is: they found a way to do it without magic
labels in the DNS
I could have mentioned tun/tap too.
-G
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Ted Lemon
<ted(_dot_)lemon(_at_)nominum(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Jul 21, 2015, at 1:36 AM, George Michaelson <ggm(_at_)algebras(_dot_)org>
wrote:
SOCKS works with a shim. there is no .SOCKS domain to make SOCKS work.
This is a non-sequitur. SOCKS is a tunnel for your network API.
Architecturally, it’s quite a poor choice for solving the problem we are
discussing. It’s used to solve that problem because it’s the easiest hack
to make it work, not because it’s the right thing to do.