On 1 Nov 2017, at 17:23, Robin Sommer wrote:
> Yeah, agree that we want such nodes, however I would like to switch > away from the proxy name. "proxy" had a very specific meaning with the > old communication system and calling the new nodes the same would be > confusing I think. Agreed. There has been so much confusion over the "proxy" name that it's best to just get rid of it. Especially considering that the *exact* tasks those processes will be taking on will be slightly different. > Justin, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this has ever been > fully fleshed out. If anybody wants to propose something specific, we > can discuss, otherwise I would suggest we stay with the minimum for > now that replicates the old system as much as possible and then expand > on that going forward. Agreed on this too. Some of these changes sound like they could take a while to prototype and figure out how they would be effectively used. .Seth -- Seth Hall * Corelight, Inc * www.corelight.com _______________________________________________ bro-dev mailing list bro-dev@bro.org http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev