Typo in section 9: "who MAY decided to use a manual" another "For rxgk it is, the xdr encoded representation of RXGK_ServerKeyDataRequest"
spurious comma here (or missing one in the reply section; be consistent) Section 10: "Only RPCs issued over an rxgk protected connection should receive rxgk protected callbacks" I believe this should be a SHOULD. I can conceive of environments where one might wish to violate this. Additionally, per offline discussion, section 4.3 should define a 100ns time type and use it for starttime, expirationtime and for consistency, lifetime. Likewise, the relationship between expirationtime-starttime and lifetime should be clarified. Derrick On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 7:29 AM, Simon Wilkinson <[email protected]> wrote: > I've just published the first draft of the rxgk-in-AFS document. This > details how rxgk is implemented within AFS, and contains proposals for > handling departmental fileservers, > migrating to rxgk, and for securing the callback channel. > > The draft is available from: > > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-wilkinson-afs3-rxgk-afs-00.txt > > Please review and comment! _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
