On Tue, 2011-11-01 at 16:20 -0500, Andrew Deason wrote: > > I'm not opposed to reserving a block of procedure numbers for > > site-local use, if that's what the group would like to see. However, > > these would have to be truly site-local, subject to agreement by all > > parties using a number for a particular purpose. It would _not_ be > > appropriate to use such numbers for vendor-specific extensions > > delivered to customers. In fact, it would be best in most cases for > > site-local RPC numbers not to ever be used in production, because > > there is no way to tell whether a peer assigns the same meaning to an > > RPC number that you do. > > If it's a completely isolated cell with centralized control of the > client software, I don't see any problems.
Agreed. I just wanted to note that if we do adopt such a range, we need to clearly state what the expectations are. There have been too many cases in various protocols of vendors cheating and using site-local numbers for vendor-specific purposes. -- Jeff _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
