A paper about Plan 9 and Guix

A paper about Plan 9 and Guix

[Edouard Klein]

Dear Guix developers,

A paper of mine has been accepted as a Work in Progress at the next
International Workshop on Plan 9 (http://iwp9.org/).

I'll be presenting it not next week end, but the one after (12-14 April
2024).

I'd be happy if some of you would be so kind as to read it with their
extensive knowledge of Guix, in case I've made a mistake somewhere.

https://the-dam.org/docs/explanations/Plan9ListenOnLinux.html

Thanks in advance,

Cheers,

Edouard.

Re: A paper about Plan 9 and Guix

[Pjotr Prins]

On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 10:20:04PM +0200, Edouard Klein wrote:
> Dear Guix developers,
> 
> A paper of mine has been accepted as a Work in Progress at the next
> International Workshop on Plan 9 (http://iwp9.org/).
> 
> I'll be presenting it not next week end, but the one after (12-14 April
> 2024).
> 
> I'd be happy if some of you would be so kind as to read it with their
> extensive knowledge of Guix, in case I've made a mistake somewhere.
> 
> https://the-dam.org/docs/explanations/Plan9ListenOnLinux.html

All I can say is WOW. 

Pj.

A paper about Plan 9 and Guix

[Nathan Dehnel]

Wow, that's incredible.

>Port number themselves stem from TCP emerging from earlier protocols (see the early RFCs 322, 349, 433 and those that obsolete them), and a clean design would probably elect to eschew them, leveraging a \(2^{128}\) address space to allow process-to-process communication, instead of the route-to-host, then route-to-process dance we do know.
>
>The host to process frontier should be an implementation detail on the receiving end, not baked so deeply in the stack.
>This barrier may even change from request to request as new hosts come up or down depending on load.
>This already happens anyway with e.g. kubernetes, but we would have less cruft if it was baked into the protocol.

That sounds like some of the problems RINA was trying to solve.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursive_Internetwork_Architecture

Re: A paper about Plan 9 and Guix

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Edouard Klein <edou@rdklein.fr> skribis:

> I'll be presenting it not next week end, but the one after (12-14 April
> 2024).

Yay, congrats!

> I'd be happy if some of you would be so kind as to read it with their
> extensive knowledge of Guix, in case I've made a mistake somewhere.
>
> https://the-dam.org/docs/explanations/Plan9ListenOnLinux.html

Interesting read!

I wonder to what extent the combination of ‘make-inetd-constructor’ and
‘least-authority-wrapper’ would fit the bill for you?  (This is currently
used for the bitlbee, dicod, and rsync services.)  It seems to address
the main shortcomings listed in Section 1.

Thanks,
Ludo’.