On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:18:26 +0200 Hartmut Reuter <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jeffrey Altman wrote: >> Hartmut Reuter wrote: >> >>> Jeffrey: >>> Is that the kind of specification you are looking for? Or what >>> else? >> >> I would like a specification of the entire protocol such that it is >> sufficient for me to be able to implement RXOSD support based >> solely on the specification. The specification must include not >> only the protocol messages but also a description of the required >> semantics. Only with such a specification will it be possible for >> independent developers to implement RXOSD. More importantly, only >> with such a specification is it possible for analysis to be done of >> the protocol to identify areas where it alters the existing AFS >> protocol semantics, or conflicts with other work that is in >> progress. > > Can you give me a link to the specification for the current protocol > that I can see how such a specification should look like? I cannot speak for Jeff, but the draft specification for extended callbacks[1] may be closer to what is desired. That's obviously not the current protocol, but may still be helpful. [1] http://michigan-openafs-lists.central.org/archives/afs3-standardization/2008-October/000247.html -- Andrew Deason [email protected] _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
