On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Andrew Deason <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 12:48:17 -0600 > Kim Kimball <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I hear that "we can't" ... "we must" >> >> Perhaps we can evaluate this: "... or are desperately-needed >> functionality that can't afford to be blocked on standardization. " >> >> What is the desperately needed functionality, and for each such item >> what is the desperate need? > > "Desparately needed" is defined extremely differently according to > different organizations, and can be conflicting. It is difficult for me > to even begin to answer that question for myself, let alone arrive at > some agreement between everyone. >
Agreed. However, if we utilize expediency as a filter, draft-brashear-afs3-pts-extended-names (now that we have resolutions to the .xg IPR question, and concomitant stall at the ISE), draft-wilkinson-afs3-rxgk, and draft-wilkinson-afs3-rxgk-afs seem, at least to me, excellent candidates for consensus work in the near term. -Tom _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
