--On Wednesday, August 20, 2008 12:09:19 PM -0400 Jake Thebault-Spieker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Registrars are specified in the proposal as:
"The registrars would be initially comprised of the current registrar,
plus a representative from each of the currently available AFS
implementations (IBM, OpenAFS, kAFS and Arla)"
Actually, valid point raised above. Suppose there aren't representatives
available/willing/able to represent one or more of the current AFS
implementations?
That's not actually a problem. The registrar's job is to maintain the
lists of what values are assigned for what purpose, to insure that the
necessary information is provided when a value is assigned, and to serve as
the synchronization point that is needed to avoid having the same value
assigned for more than one purpose. The role specifically does not involve
passing judgement on whether the intended purpose of a value is a good
idea; that is left up to the standardization group to determine, either by
endorsing a standard for which a value is to be assigned or by having
created a registry in which values may be assigned without a standard.
The registrar load is actually light enough that one person can easily
handle it. The reason for having multiple registrars is for redundancy to
protect against one person becoming unavailable or unwilling to serve or
too lame to respond in a reasonable time. Once the group is set up, it is
expected to be self-maintaining, selecting new people as needed. The
initial bootstrapping could just as easily be done by making the initial
group be composed of the current registrar (i.e. me) and 2-4 people of his
choosing. Simon can correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect the reason for
starting with representatives of the existing implementations was related
to the role of the Registrar in the initial election.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
[email protected]
http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
