> >Abstract: > >12: what you're describing in this document is your proposed >implementation, not the actual code, right? If so, then the text of line >12 should reflect that it is a proposal, not a description of an >implementation. > >Body: > >14: "greater" than what? That needs to refer to something, but there's >nothing specified to compare it to. > >20: period missing at end of line. > >79, ff: the previous lines have described what the context is, but you >haven't clearly stated what you are proposing. I would suggest that you >insert here a clear statement of the desired function, and provide the 3 >Good Reasons why it's worth implementing here. > >83,84: Where are these flags documented? If there's no formal >documentation of them, it would probably be smart to provide a short >summary of what the definition of each one of the flags is, the meaning of >each, and the context rather than referring to the other RPC. This >document has to stand alone in lieu of any other extant documentation. > >If there is documentation of these flags, a specific reference is >desirable/expected. > >88: You're actually defining a new RPC code, not a general RPC mechanism. >Insert "code" following RPC. > >94: Since no documentation exists for GetSize outside the code, you need >to summarize the function of it here. Ditto DumpV2 at #96. > >105,106: are there concerns with the impending rollover of the Unix epoch >in 2087? If so, discuss them here. > >114-118: Move these lines to a separate section (3.3) entitled "Return >Codes". Also, is there a symbolic value for 0, rather than assuming the C >library returns 0 for OK on all platforms? > >122-126: Since no documentation exists of the DumpV2 flags, a short >discussion of their syntax and function would be appropriate here, at >minimum the syntax and function of VOLDUMPV2_OMITDIRS need to be >documented so that you can reference them in the definition of >VOLGETSIZEV2_OMITDIRS. > >150: The section of this line starting with "And.." is a sentence >fragment. > >161: See 88 above. Insert RPC before code point. > >162: is there a official name for the AFS AN registry? If so, use it here. > >164-167: This is a really good suggestion that should be implemented >AFS-wide. It'll greatly help collecting data on the protocol that's >actually deployed rather than relying on the ancient Transarc docs. > >167: Use a specific section reference, instead of "above". Section 3.2.
_______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
