The other one that comes to my mind off the top of my head (and is also
quite old) is Waterken:
https://waterken.sourceforge.net/
Capability people will often distinguish between CapTP-style and
"Ken-style" (from Waterken) capabilities. I don't quite remember what the
main differences are, though
> On Dec 26, 2022, at 3:28 PM, Kenton Varda wrote:
>
> I'm not sure what you mean about "(negative) remote capability #". There are
> no negative numbers.
Oops, I got that from the old E documentation (erights.org.) They used negative
numbers to identify capability IDs that were created on
On Mon, Dec 26, 2022 at 4:42 PM Jens Alfke wrote:
> Thanks. I then spent some time trying to figure out why this scenario
> occurs — when the local peer received the capability Carol from the remote
> one, shouldn’t it have been marked in the protocol as being a peer exported
> by the recipient?
> On Dec 17, 2022, at 1:46 PM, Kenton Varda wrote:
>
> To clarify, when I say "Carol lives in Vat A, i.e. next to Alice", I am
> saying that Alice and Carol are two objects living in the same process. So a
> capability pointing to Carol was passed across the network and then back
> again, ov
Hi Jens,
To clarify, when I say "Carol lives in Vat A, i.e. next to Alice", I am
saying that Alice and Carol are two objects living in the same process. So
a capability pointing to Carol was passed across the network and then back
again, over the same connection. In this case, we want to shorten t
