Steven Jenkins wrote: > > I understand that it's a clerical role, but in a paid position, there > are rules and procedures for terminating employment. We need to have > analogous (not necessarily identical) ones here. With respect to the > terms, once the boostrap has started, terms will be more loose, but > each registrar should be committing to a two year term (life will > interfere, in which case the registrars will be free to find a > replacement mid-term, whose term will be two years starting *then*). > I'm not sure I understand why registrars would have term limits or there would be limits on the number of them.
The point of the registrars is so that there are sufficient and convenient numbers of them with access to the master registration lists to ensure that any group or individual that wants to propose an extension to the protocol can do so without producing an interoperability conflict because two implementations decided to use the same RPC numbers. The bootstrapping process was specified as selecting an individual from each of the existing implementations because it is the implementation teams that will most often be the ones deciding that they need a number assigned. The registrars do not carry extra weight when it comes to standardization decisions nor do they have the right to turn down an assignment request. If a new implementation comes along they too can and should be granted access to the master registration lists. Jeffrey Altman
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
