On Tue, 15 Jan 2013, Michael Meffie wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 12:38:47 -0500
Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2013, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
I still don't have a better idea than a new section.
I pushed ac793f588b84f97038b433d61e3b43e9279fc547 to github with a new
section describing the use of the error codes, and removing the
COMPOUND_IDENTITY and PRINTED codes.
There have been a few other syntax/formatting commits in there, too,
but those should be uninteresting.
Hello Ben,
This looks fine to me. Hearing no objections, do you have any other updates
planned before making a draft 03 of the rxgk i-d? Otherwise, do you have a
timeline in mind for the draft 03? I would like to make call for consesus.
[We discussed this on OpenAFS Jabber today]
I think Simon plans to submit a new I-D tomorrow, but there remain a few
tweaks that will be needed before we finalize the document.
In particular, placing limits on the length of variable-length arrays on
the wire and distinguishing which errors should be sent as aborts versus
in-band codes come to mind.
That said, I don't know of any major issues outstanding with this
document, and it may be time to move our focus to the rxgk-afs document.
There is some chance that discussion on that latter document could cause
us to want to change portions of the rxgk document.
-Ben
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
