On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Andrew Deason <[email protected]> wrote:
>> b) the granularity > > This one I still have no idea on. I see reasons for both sides. So is there a reason an extended union with the various stamp granularities would be a nonstarter? In particular I'd suggest the draft strongly discourage sending a larger timestamp than actual information supports (e.g. don't use bits to send precision you don't have, rather than trailing-zero-padding a larger than needed number) -- Derrick _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
