On 12 Feb 2011, at 14:15, Jason Edgecombe <[email protected]> wrote:
> I got a little confused. Was the IPvN address conversation put on hold > because the encoding needs to be worked out first? If so, I'm assuming that > the IPvN address discussion will be revisited when the encoding is resolved. > Is that correct? I think some people would like to see this happen. I'm strongly opposed to this approach, however. I don't believe that we have any volunteers to specify, standardise or implement extended unions as RX primitives at present. Discussion here also suggests that doing so is likely to take considerably more time than just doing something for addresses. So, I would like to see a draft produced describing a new address type. I believe that we are in a position to do so now, and that we have effort to follow the draft through with an implementation. Cheers, Simon. _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
