On 22 Jun 2009, at 05:27, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
So it's right for us to give serious consideration to expanding the
namespace, and to making backward compatibility with the oldest
clients a secondary consideration.
This is where you and the OpenAFS gatekeepers differ in a most
significant way.
I think we should remember our reasons for separating out
standardisation from OpenAFS. Whilst OpenAFS's concerns (as the major
implementor) can certainly guide our discussions, I don't think what
the gatekeepers feel they can or cannot implement should necessarily
constrain those discussions.
So, I think there are two real issues here:
a) Is it desirable that a future version of the AFS protocol be
capable of supporting 64 bit volume IDs?
b) Given a) do we want to include 64 bit volume IDs in the protocol
revision we are currently discussing?
Cheers,
Simon.
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
[email protected]
http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
