On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 12:51:53 -0400 (EDT) "Matt W. Benjamin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yes, there are RPC refresh dependencies. I don't believe any is a > blocker for consensus, however, as evidenced by the request from the > hackathon to proceed. Oh yes, I didn't intend for that to be a blocking issue. If we just agree that the time specification is just the same as what all AFS3 RPCs will use, I certainly don't have any objection. I didn't know if something should be mentioned in the draft saying something like that, but I'll leave that to those who are more familiar with I-Ds than me. As for the actual substance of the draft, I don't have objections. I kind of wish asynchronous cb delivery had reached enough agreement to be specified, but I suppose arguing about that will come later. "+1 looks good to me, but someone else must approve". -- Andrew Deason [email protected] _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
