Storage format for remotenames.

[Augie Fackler]

> On Nov 10, 2017, at 18:03, Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> Would it make sense to try and come to an agreement on a single format we can use for node->label storage? It's come up in the bookmarks binary part patches as well...
>> 
> Perhaps. But that could quickly devolve into such topics as:
> 
> * Unified vs per-domain storage
> * Label specific versus generic node metadata storage

I mostly meant around a record format that would let us map node->label, but maybe I'm being ambitious even on that front. :/