extensible-union sounds reasonable. Matt
----- "Tom Keiser" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Matt W. Benjamin <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I had thought of safe-union and guarded-union, I wasn't in love with > these. > > > > "extensible-union"? I could go for "safe-union", but (imho) it has > some negative subtext with respect to rfc 4506, which is probably not > what we want... > > -Tom -- Matt Benjamin The Linux Box 206 South Fifth Ave. Suite 150 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 http://linuxbox.com tel. 734-761-4689 fax. 734-769-8938 cel. 734-216-5309 _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
