The distinction is that we know there are clients and servers in the wild that will be adversely affected if/when this change is integrated. You may be willing to say on behalf of your clients that this is ok but too be honest, I'm not willing to do that to your clients.
Jeffrey Altman Matt W. Benjamin wrote: > Hi, > > Honestly, I don't really believe that there is a real distinction between > fields we don't know someone is using (0+ users are unknown), and the case at > hand, where there are known users, and the known users are agreed on an > accommodation (0+ users are unknown). > > Matt > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Russ Allbery" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Monday, June 8, 2009 1:41:53 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern > Subject: Re: [AFS3-std] RxOSD claim on 2 structure members > >> Yeah, I was thinking of that, and that may be too strong. We may want >> to apply the strong version only with protocol fields that we know >> people have been using. > >> It occurs to me that if we know of unused and spare fields that we're >> pretty sure no one is using, we should try to make a really loud noise >> about how we're reserving them for *only* protocol changes that come out >> of this working group so that we can hang on to them. > > Exactly, yes. > _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
