--On Thursday, October 08, 2009 03:04:54 PM -0400 "Matt W. Benjamin"
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Again,
Let me restate that.
The XCB draft should be read on its own. The only area where there could
have been ambiguity was 64-bit time representation, as this was included,
but had not been formally defined. The -implementation- happens to
regard such timestamps as time values in seconds, but there is no claim
in the specification that this is the case, so I would propose the daft
should in that regard be read so as to reflect the 100-ns consensus from
the hackathon, unless someone objects to that idea itself--which is again
separate from XCB.
Don't tell us "it should be read to mean foo". Make it actually _say_ foo.
If it's presently underspecified, that will need to be fixed before it can
be considered done.
Of course, that should not cause people to give up on reviewing this
version.
For other areas of overlap, such as 64-bit values for AFSFid components,
the draft should be interpreted as specifying no change from existing
AFS-3 protocol definitions, because none was intended. The intention of
other authors to propose changes to AFSFid is outside the scope of the
XCB review, I believe.
Not necessarily. For example, someone could reasonably propose that XCB
should be updated now to use 64-bit FID's, rather than requiring an update
later. I'm not ready to make such a proposal yet, but I might before this
is done.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
[email protected]
http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
