> > 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.
I hope we do not need to make any more changes to the rxgk document, but as we discussed, it may be wise to progress rxgk and rxgk-afs as a set. That being said, are there any objections to starting the review of rxgk-afs in earnest and tabling all discussion on the rxgk document? Can we get a list of the open issues and a time line on when we think we can have a draft for review? Thank you, Mike -- Michael Meffie <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
