--On Friday, August 29, 2008 03:49:05 PM -0400 Jeffrey Altman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
I'm not sure it needs to be based on implementations. That's a fine
bootstrapping mechanism, but it wouldn't scale to 20 implementations. In
practice, I don't expect all of the existing implementations to nominate a
registrar, either, though I'd be thrilled if they did. But then, this is
exactly why we specify initial membership this way but do not require a
specific composition on an ongoing basis.
The key point here is to establish a group that is large enough to avoid
bottlenecks, but small enough to allow them to coordinate atomic assignment
of numbers, and trusted to maintain the integrity of the database (which,
at present, is little more than a collection of HTML files).
BTW, note that if the registrars are chartered under this document, the
group can always amend the process document to change the way the
registrars work.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
[email protected]
http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
