On 2/14/2011 5:23 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: > --On Friday, February 04, 2011 09:32:53 AM -0500 Derrick Brashear > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> This is not a complete refresh of all Ubik RPCs. It would allow >> capability for IPv6, 64 bit times, multiple files in a database, >> beacon returns not precluding errors. Comments welcome, I will refine >> further into a draft. > > I'm trying to decide whether I think Ubik is even a subject for > standardization, rather than an implementation detail of OpenAFS. I > don't think we necessarily expect ubik servers of different > implementations to be able to operate together, and certainly database > _contents_ are an implementation detail.
As far as I am concerned, ubik is not part of the AFS3 protocol. It is an implementation detail of OpenAFS. I do not believe that it should be expected to mix database server implementations from IBM, OpenAFS, and MiscOSVendor. What is important to standardize are the client facing RPCs not the db-server to db-server RPCs. There have been many discussions in the past of replacing the Protection Service with Active Directory or other LDAP servers. There is no reason the Volume Location service could not be replaced by some other completing new implementation provided that outward facing RPCs are compliant with the standards. Jeffrey Altman
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
