On 2 Nov 2012, at 22:32, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: >> It changes the RPC signature, which is by no means a blocking objection >> (but might, say, hurt interoperability with already-deployed >> implementations). > > I don't think there are any, and to some extent, that's what you get for > deploying a work-in-progress before it's done. I know YFS has an > implementation, or at least most of one. However, I suspect they're > running it on an alternate Rx service ID (allocated by the registrar for > that purpose) to avoid conflicts with whatever eventually comes out of > this process. I don't know if they've shipped or deployed anything.
YFS have a deployed implementation, which does run on an alternate service ID. We decided to implement support for alternate service-IDs specifically so that we could work around a slow and unpredictable standardisation process. Of course, this does mean that we have implementation experience of the drafts as they currently stand - we obviously can't provide the benefits of this experience to discussions of bits that get modified. Cheers, Simon _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
