Steven Jenkins wrote: > > That last paragraph is not reflected in the language of the document. > While the registrars are to be bootstrapped from > a specific set of implementations, there is no language that says a > new implementation should be added to the registrars, other than > implicitly by appealing to the existing registrars. > > There is also no language that says how an implementation should be > removed from the registrars either -- which is actually the line of > thinking that got me started on this. But I don't think there needs > to be language targeting specific implementations -- the 'one per > implementation' is a boostrap issue only, and is a perfectly > reasonable way to kickstart getting an adequate number of registrars > in place. > > I think it much better that registrars manage themselves. After all, > their role is to merely ensure that assignment requests are granted; > they aren't in a decison-making role. Thus, there is no need for a > new implementation to need to be granted access to the master > registration lists as long as there are sufficient numbers of active > registars handling the requests. > The reason there is no mention of how the registrars decide to do their job is that those are decisions of the registrars and do not impact the standardization process.
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
