On Tue, 22 Jan 2013, Michael Meffie wrote:
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?
That sounds good.
Can we get a list of the open issues and a time line on when we think we can
have a draft for review?
Hmm, when I first read this mail I read this as open issues with the rxgk
draft, but now I think you meant the rxgk-afs draft.
I will plan to do the same historical research for rxgk-afs that I did for
rxgk, hopefully this week. I won't have an idea of what the timeline will
be until I've done that research. I seem to recall that this document
needed more work than the base rxgk document, though.
We could update
http://afs3-stds.central.org/working/draft-wilkinson-afs3-rxgk/issues.html
with a few things so as to not lose track of them, though they are minor:
Length limits on variable-length arrays
Discussion of putting errors in RX aborts vs. in-band error fields
Correct the client's termination condition for the GSSNegotiate RPC
-Ben
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
