Jim Starkey wrote:

>In Netfrastructure,
>
> statement := CREATE COTERIE <name> [ AS ] <address> [ , <address ]...
>
>

Question - how are named coteries assigned to users? GRANT COTERIE YYY
TO USER XXX ?

> address := <ip_address>
> <ip_address> TO <ip_address>
>
>

This form of specifying set of IP addresses is a bit not traditional.
Almost all people use subnets for this purpose. But may be this form is
even better, specially for people who don't have experience with IP
configuration using text files in unix.

> <dns_name>
> *.<dns_name>
>
>

What is the last? I suppose all hosts and sub-domains from domain
<dns_name>. Is it correct?

> ip_address := <number>.<number>.<number>.<number>
>
>Firebird should also accept IPv6 ip address.
>

How can it arrive here if our remote listener works now only with IPv4?
In general I'm agree - should, but there is some more job to be done to
achieve it, and coteries is not the bigmost part of this job.

>Although I parse DNS
>names, it was too much bother to implement, and numeric ranges have been
>perfectly satisfactory.
>
>
>

If you support *.<dns_name> form, you have to make reverse lookups to
achieve your aim, and this really has a lot of problems. But in case of
simple <dns_name> I don't understand, what is wrong.

>I believe coteries should be strictly affirmative. Blocking specific
>addresses after the fact shows too little appreciation for the abilities
>of malicious hackers.
>
>

Completely agreed here. Black lists may be useful only for tasks like
AntiSpam.