On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 10:21:28 -0600 "Douglas E. Engert" <[email protected]> wrote:
> So I would like to ask Andrew and Jeff in particular if they feel that > we need to add these items to the document? A few words just saying that the implicit fallback mapping is implementation-defined but may be defined by a future spec or something may be helpful. I don't know if I consider it required, but I don't think we need any _more_ than that. As to the question of defining implicit mappings, I feel that that can wait until a future spec. Additional interfaces can be designed to add/inspect/modify implicit mappings, and everything else in this spec stays the same. And such a thing would certainly be optional, complex enough and need very mechanism-specific definitions that I think it warrants its own separate document. I defer to others on how that would be best represented in the current doc. For right now, I don't think we need any configurability or specification for implicit mappings beyond "the server has some hard-coded rules", but in the future we may want more than that. -- Andrew Deason [email protected] _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
