On 11 Mar 2011, at 23:27, Tom Keiser wrote: > So, what are we going to do about the GetCapabilities issue? A > compliant implementation could cache this data forever, which > is.....preposterous. Can we can handle this via the RFC errata > process?
It's not an RFC, and we're not the IETF, so no. We've never really codified what happens next, beyond that being declared "experimental" is the point that people can go away and get identifiers, and release products containing the code. It's really important that this mean something, which is why I don't think we should accept late challenges or modifications to the document. People should be free to go away and write, and release, code based on this groups consensus without worrying that weeks later someone will go "hang on", and rewrite the standard under them. Sure, we may get it wrong. When we do, we have to accept that code may be deployed containing our mistakes, and we have to consider how to fix those mistakes without breaking the deployed base. In this case, there are two separate issues. The first is a document clarification (GetCapabilities responses should only be cached for a certain number of hours). I think that one is acceptable to bring back as a clarfication when the document is next advanced (which is the point it will, hopefully, become an RFC). The second, however, is harder. I don't think that we can add fields to RPCs that have reached experimental. So, we have to decide whether the possible race is sufficiently serious to warrant creating a new RPC, with a new code point, to implement this behaviour. In any event, it's perfectly acceptable for people to release code and/or ship products that contain the RFC as described within the current document - all we can do is propose a better successor. Sorry, but the last call on this document closed in December of last year - the time for tinkering with this version is long past. Simon. _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
