--On Tuesday, February 08, 2011 03:09:23 PM -0500 "Matt W. Benjamin"
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
I am probably misunderstanding something, but is it the case that the
address types of the future problem is the same one addressed by RFC
5665?
No, I don't think so. That document is part of the ongoing solution to the
"we (IETF) have too many protocol fields that lack proper registries"
problem; it creates and provides initial contents and registration
procedures for a registry for an existing protocol field used in ONC RPC.
It's really not a good idea to try to interpret it out of that context.
Now, we might look at the origins of that field and how it is used in
NFSv4, but I don't think it necessarily solves the same problem we're going
after, I don't think representing everything as strings is a wonderful
idea, and just because ONC RPC tied network and transport together in a
particular context doesn't mean that doing so is appropriate in every case
where an Rx application wishes to transport a network address.
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
