Hi Derrick, Thanks very much for the review; I'll incorporate those edits.
I'd like to publish -03 on Tuesday. If any interested party can find time to send comments by Monday, it would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, -Tom Sent from my phone; please excuse any typographic or grammatical errors. -----Original Message----- From: Derrick Brashear [[email protected]] Received: Wednesday, 20 Jul 2011, 9:33am To: Tom Keiser [[email protected]] Subject: Re: [AFS3-std] Re: XDR extensible union type i lie "1. Lookup the discriminant" I believe that should be, as an operation, "look up" On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Derrick Brashear <[email protected]> wrote: > 6. AFS Assign Numbers Registrar Considerations > > "Assigned" > > the actual content is fine and i see no issues. > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Tom Keiser <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Jun 20, 2011 2:41 PM, "Tom Keiser" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I pushed a new revision of draft-keiser-afs3-xdr-union: >>> >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-keiser-afs3-xdr-union-02 >>> >>> This revision incorporates the following two changes: >>> >>> * modify section on error handling (3.4.1) to make length mismatches a >>> fatal error >>> * add a "use case" section (1.1) to discuss trade-offs associated with >>> using this type >>> >>> Any comments are welcome. >>> >>> -Tom >> >> This is a second call for review of draft-keiser-afs3-xdr-union-02; all >> comments are welcome. >> >> Cheers, >> >> -Tom > > > > -- > Derrick > -- Derrick
