On 3/10/2011 10:50 AM, Simon Wilkinson wrote: > > On 10 Mar 2011, at 15:38, Andrew Deason wrote: > >> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 12:17:52 +0000 >> Simon Wilkinson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 4/ Rewrite the challenge definition in terms of either the proposed >>> new afs-union structure (which seems to me to break abstraction >>> layers) >> >> This is what I thought would be done in cases like this. What >> abstraction is this breaking? The new type is at the XDR layer, like all >> of the other XDR primitives. > > That RX shouldn't have "afs" dependencies. If our intention is that > afs-union be a new, generic, XDR type, then we need to call it something > that doesn't have "afs" in the name. > > S. >
XDR is an IETF standards track RFC (4506) and STD (67). Modifications to XDR must be submitted to the IETF for standardization. The process for defining new types is specified in RFC 4506. It requires a standards track RFC that replaces 4506. Any work to update 4506 should be performed in conjunction with the NFSv4 working group. Jeffrey Altman
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
