On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Andrew Deason <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 09:15:59 -0500 > 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? > > How are they different conversations? Discussing how we encode IPvN > addresses on the wire is always what we were trying to solve. The latest > discussions suggest putting them in a new primitive type (an 'extensible > union' or whatever you want to call it). As far as I can tell, there are > no more loose ends with the design of such a structure, and a draft > could be written now. > > I'd write it myself if I didn't think Derrick was going to do it (and if > I were better that writing these kinds of things).
My hope is to write something next week, I want to get the 1.6.0pre2 blob shoved out first, now that buildbot has finally given me a couple uninterrupted days of love. -- Derrick _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
