On Thu, 3 Apr 2014 13:56:51 -0400 Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi all, > > I've read this document and have delightfully little to say about it. > It's a pretty straightforward enhancement filling a long-standing void, > which is good. > > The only real comment I might offer is that this is in last call jointly > with a document defining 64-bit time types. Seciton 5.1 does mention > future work for improving date representations (now concurrent work), but > it doesn't seem that there is compelling reason to reopen this document to > use the 64-bit time representation. > > It's unclear whether we want to suggest that the values of the GetSizeV2 > flags match the values of the DumpV2 flags, since they need not have the > same flags. Given that there's only one flag at present and adding more > would require some though, I don't think it matters either way. > > It also struck me in parts of Section 8 that we sometimes request things > of the registry and at other times suggest actions for them. I don't know > how important the distinction is; we could probably just request things > always. > > Anyway, this document is fine and I would be happy if it was published > as-is. I do not think any changes are necessary. Thank you Ben, for the review and the comments. Thanks, Mike -- Michael Meffie <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ AFS3-standardization mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization
