I'm (mostly) with Russ. As long as site-local means "something you
promise to *never* standardize it's fine. if you break that promise,
someone is sad. probably mostly you.
Derrick
On Jun 12, 2009, at 9:54 PM, Russ Allbery <[email protected]> wrote:
Steve Simmons <[email protected]> writes:
I kind of like having two types of fields - some reserved, to be used
for officially blessed things as we're discussing, and some
specifically designated for local use. In this particular case there
may not be enough fields/bytes to allow this, but we should at least
keep the idea in mind.
Other protocols have had bad experiences with this, often because it's
extremely difficult to tell in advance whether something you want to
do
is going to be only a local change and then you end up wanting to
standardize things in the local use area. I don't know if we'd be
able
to pull it off.
There's some predecent in the additional ACL bits. I'm not sure in
which direction that example is an argument, though.
--
Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
>
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
[email protected]
http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
[email protected]
http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
