From tkeiser@sinenomine.net  Mon Aug  1 00:53:40 2011
From: tkeiser@sinenomine.net (Tom Keiser)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2011 19:53:40 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: XDR extensible union type
In-Reply-To: <5D0108C15137EC449A517DD8454DE71503041C69F4@34093-MBX-C15.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
References: <AcxG4ZFuaYCU/LENS+ysCykoj1AgzgAXdVgL>
 <5D0108C15137EC449A517DD8454DE71503041C69F4@34093-MBX-C15.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
Message-ID: <CAK3rXuCoLKEd+bScNF6uCVVa-FAirHQH_rR_hcyd840mRnhG-g@mail.gmail.com>

--0015174483e85c0ec004a9663966
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I pushed draft-keiser-afs3-xdr-union-03 (incorporating Derrick's grammatical
corrections) to the IETF last week.  Comments are hereby solicited.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-keiser-afs3-xdr-union-03

Cheers,

-Tom
On Jul 20, 2011 8:46 PM, "Tom Keiser" <tkeiser@sinenomine.net> wrote:
> Hi Derrick,
>
> Thanks very much for the review; I'll incorporate those edits.
>
> I'd like to publish -03 on Tuesday. If any interested party can find time
to send comments by Monday, it would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Tom
>
> Sent from my phone; please excuse any typographic or grammatical errors.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Derrick Brashear [shadow@gmail.com]
> Received: Wednesday, 20 Jul 2011, 9:33am
> To: Tom Keiser [tkeiser@sinenomine.net]
> Subject: Re: [AFS3-std] Re: XDR extensible union type
>
> i lie
>
> "1. Lookup the discriminant"
>
> I believe that should be, as an operation, "look up"
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Derrick Brashear <shadow@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> 6. AFS Assign Numbers Registrar Considerations
>>
>> "Assigned"
>>
>> the actual content is fine and i see no issues.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Tom Keiser <tkeiser@sinenomine.net>
wrote:
>>> On Jun 20, 2011 2:41 PM, "Tom Keiser" <tkeiser@sinenomine.net> wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I pushed a new revision of draft-keiser-afs3-xdr-union:
>>>>
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-keiser-afs3-xdr-union-02
>>>>
>>>> This revision incorporates the following two changes:
>>>>
>>>> * modify section on error handling (3.4.1) to make length mismatches a
>>>> fatal error
>>>> * add a "use case" section (1.1) to discuss trade-offs associated with
>>>> using this type
>>>>
>>>> Any comments are welcome.
>>>>
>>>> -Tom
>>>
>>> This is a second call for review of draft-keiser-afs3-xdr-union-02; all
>>> comments are welcome.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> -Tom
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Derrick
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Derrick

--0015174483e85c0ec004a9663966
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p>I pushed draft-keiser-afs3-xdr-union-03 (incorporating Derrick&#39;s gra=
mmatical corrections) to the IETF last week.=A0 Comments are hereby solicit=
ed.</p>
<p><a href=3D"http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-keiser-afs3-xdr-union-03">ht=
tp://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-keiser-afs3-xdr-union-03</a></p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
<p>-Tom</p>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Jul 20, 2011 8:46 PM, &quot;Tom Keiser&quot; =
&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:tkeiser@sinenomine.net">tkeiser@sinenomine.net</a>&gt=
; wrote:<br type=3D"attribution">&gt; Hi Derrick,<br>&gt; <br>&gt; Thanks v=
ery much for the review; I&#39;ll incorporate those edits.<br>
&gt; <br>&gt; I&#39;d like to publish -03 on Tuesday. If any interested par=
ty can find time to send comments by Monday, it would be greatly appreciate=
d.<br>&gt; <br>&gt; Cheers,<br>&gt; <br>&gt; -Tom<br>&gt; <br>&gt; Sent fro=
m my phone; please excuse any typographic or grammatical errors.<br>
&gt; <br>&gt; -----Original Message-----<br>&gt; From: Derrick Brashear [<a=
 href=3D"mailto:shadow@gmail.com">shadow@gmail.com</a>]<br>&gt; Received: W=
ednesday, 20 Jul 2011, 9:33am<br>&gt; To: Tom Keiser [<a href=3D"mailto:tke=
iser@sinenomine.net">tkeiser@sinenomine.net</a>]<br>
&gt; Subject: Re: [AFS3-std] Re: XDR extensible union type<br>&gt; <br>&gt;=
 i lie<br>&gt; <br>&gt; &quot;1.  Lookup the discriminant&quot;<br>&gt; <br=
>&gt; I believe that should be, as an operation, &quot;look up&quot;<br>
&gt; <br>&gt; <br>&gt; On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Derrick Brashear &l=
t;<a href=3D"mailto:shadow@gmail.com">shadow@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>&g=
t;&gt; 6.  AFS Assign Numbers Registrar Considerations<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&=
gt; &quot;Assigned&quot;<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt; the actual content is fine and i see no issues.<br>&gt=
;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt; On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Tom Keiser &lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:tkeiser@sinenomine.net">tkeiser@sinenomine.net</a>&gt; wrote:<br=
>
&gt;&gt;&gt; On Jun 20, 2011 2:41 PM, &quot;Tom Keiser&quot; &lt;<a href=3D=
"mailto:tkeiser@sinenomine.net">tkeiser@sinenomine.net</a>&gt; wrote:<br>&g=
t;&gt;&gt;&gt; Hi all,<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; I pushed a n=
ew revision of draft-keiser-afs3-xdr-union:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"http://tools.ietf.org/html/=
draft-keiser-afs3-xdr-union-02">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-keiser-afs=
3-xdr-union-02</a><br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; This revision in=
corporates the following two changes:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; * modify section on error handling (3.=
4.1) to make length mismatches a<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; fatal error<br>&gt;&gt=
;&gt;&gt; * add a &quot;use case&quot; section (1.1) to discuss trade-offs =
associated with<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; using this type<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; An=
y comments are welcome.<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; -Tom<br>&gt=
;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt; This is a second call for review of  draft-keiser=
-afs3-xdr-union-02; all<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; comments are welcome.<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt; Cheers,<=
br>&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt; -Tom<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;<br=
>&gt;&gt; --<br>&gt;&gt; Derrick<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt; <br>&gt; <br>&gt; <br>
&gt; --<br>&gt; Derrick<br></div>

--0015174483e85c0ec004a9663966--

From simon@sxw.org.uk  Mon Aug  1 18:07:35 2011
From: simon@sxw.org.uk (Simon Wilkinson)
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 18:07:35 +0100
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org> <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu> <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk> <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net> <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>

Given how much of what we want to do depends on defining a new time type, it=
 would be good to keep up the momentum with this draft.

Would those with problems with the current draft be prepared to suggest new w=
ording for:

a) the epoch value
b) the granularity

that we could use as a basis for further discussion? It would also be wonder=
ful if everyone with an interest in this topic could participate in that dis=
cussion, rather than waiting for another last call to raise objections.

Thanks,

Simon=

From rra@stanford.edu  Mon Aug  1 18:13:57 2011
From: rra@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 10:13:57 -0700
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk> (Simon
 Wilkinson's message of "Mon, 1 Aug 2011 18:07:35 +0100")
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>
Message-ID: <87wrex836y.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>

Simon Wilkinson <simon@sxw.org.uk> writes:

> Would those with problems with the current draft be prepared to suggest
> new wording for:

> a) the epoch value
> b) the granularity

> that we could use as a basis for further discussion? It would also be
> wonderful if everyone with an interest in this topic could participate
> in that discussion, rather than waiting for another last call to raise
> objections.

As nice as it would be to be able to represent old timestamps in the file
system, we've never been able to before (at least consistently), and I
think the simplicity benefits for compatibility with current code bases of
sticking with the POSIX epoch are substantial.

I don't have an opinion on the granularity.  For me, the benefits of
matching NFS and the POSIX timestamp granularity is fairly evenly balanced
against the drawbacks of increasing the size of all of our protocol
packets.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

From matt@linuxbox.com  Mon Aug  1 18:21:47 2011
From: matt@linuxbox.com (Matt W. Benjamin)
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 13:21:47 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on
 draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <87wrex836y.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <159746358.62.1312219307195.JavaMail.root@thunderbeast.private.linuxbox.com>

Hi,

a) with Russ
b) Intuitively I would have voted and would vote for the more NFS, POSIX flavor of timestamp granularity.  In prior discussion, that was not the consensus.

Matt

----- "Russ Allbery" <rra@stanford.edu> wrote:

> Simon Wilkinson <simon@sxw.org.uk> writes:
> 
> > Would those with problems with the current draft be prepared to
> suggest
> > new wording for:
> 
> > a) the epoch value
> > b) the granularity

> 
> As nice as it would be to be able to represent old timestamps in the
> file
> system, we've never been able to before (at least consistently), and
> I
> think the simplicity benefits for compatibility with current code
> bases of
> sticking with the POSIX epoch are substantial.
> 
> I don't have an opinion on the granularity.  For me, the benefits of
> matching NFS and the POSIX timestamp granularity is fairly evenly
> balanced
> against the drawbacks of increasing the size of all of our protocol
> packets.
>

-- 

Matt Benjamin

The Linux Box
206 South Fifth Ave. Suite 150
Ann Arbor, MI  48104

http://linuxbox.com

tel. 734-761-4689
fax. 734-769-8938
cel. 734-216-5309

From adeason@sinenomine.net  Mon Aug  1 18:28:10 2011
From: adeason@sinenomine.net (Andrew Deason)
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 12:28:10 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>
Message-ID: <20110801122810.81b1889c.adeason@sinenomine.net>

On Mon, 1 Aug 2011 18:07:35 +0100
Simon Wilkinson <simon@sxw.org.uk> wrote:

> Given how much of what we want to do depends on defining a new time
> type, it would be good to keep up the momentum with this draft.
> 
> Would those with problems with the current draft be prepared to
> suggest new wording for:
> 
> a) the epoch value

I don't think I've heard any significant arguments for keeping the epoch
as it exists in the current draft. And since there are issues with the
current epoch value that Russ has detailed, it makes sense to me to
change it to the posix epoch. I was going to change it unless I heard
someone object; I'll propose some new text soon based on Russ'
suggestions unless someone else wants to.

> b) the granularity

This one I still have no idea on. I see reasons for both sides.

> that we could use as a basis for further discussion? It would also be
> wonderful if everyone with an interest in this topic could participate
> in that discussion, rather than waiting for another last call to raise
> objections.

Most people involved have a lot of deadlines to work with and balance.
Right now, the only "deadline" we are given for standards discussion is
the last call. If you want to ensure discussion before that point, give
another deadline.

-- 
Andrew Deason
adeason@sinenomine.net


From shadow@gmail.com  Mon Aug  1 18:32:46 2011
From: shadow@gmail.com (Derrick Brashear)
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 13:32:46 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <20110801122810.81b1889c.adeason@sinenomine.net>
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>
 <20110801122810.81b1889c.adeason@sinenomine.net>
Message-ID: <CAMHoRJg1C2sVXyETEyaKwP_T0GSLDLuO9_nB_n2YMEz6qWG55g@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> wrote:

>> b) the granularity
>
> This one I still have no idea on. I see reasons for both sides.

So is there a reason an extended union with the various stamp
granularities would be a nonstarter? In particular I'd suggest the
draft strongly discourage
sending a larger timestamp than actual information supports (e.g.
don't use bits to send precision you don't have, rather than
trailing-zero-padding a
larger than needed number)

-- 
Derrick

From jaltman@secure-endpoints.com  Mon Aug  1 18:39:35 2011
From: jaltman@secure-endpoints.com (Jeffrey Altman)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 13:39:35 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <87wrex836y.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>	<4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>	<D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>	<87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>	<87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk> <87wrex836y.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <4E36E4D7.9010308@secure-endpoints.com>

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig4A27C580FE23C3E7E55C905E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 8/1/2011 1:13 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> As nice as it would be to be able to represent old timestamps in the fi=
le
> system, we've never been able to before (at least consistently), and I
> think the simplicity benefits for compatibility with current code bases=
 of
> sticking with the POSIX epoch are substantial.
>
> I don't have an opinion on the granularity.  For me, the benefits of
> matching NFS and the POSIX timestamp granularity is fairly evenly balan=
ced
> against the drawbacks of increasing the size of all of our protocol
> packets.

I have a strong desire to ensure that everything that can be represented
in an NTFS file system can be represented in AFS.  I don't care if the
epoch is the same or if the granularity is better than 100ns or not.

I am concerned about the size of status structures given how frequently
they are sent and because the size of the status structure determines
how many FIDs can be specified in a single Bulk Status request.

It would be nice if we could have some form of compressed time
representation that only sent the required number of bits necessary to
represent the required granularity.

Jeffrey Altman


--------------enig4A27C580FE23C3E7E55C905E
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJONuTdAAoJENxm1CNJffh4/1EH/2edEyuNmABtPOma63yPvItC
dlmgGYHO5YnJyW7dsoPyE4+wtorPCPFpVIriwIyke7eXhBjDHYod0sE+PjMa00US
elGszsC+O8YFReJQkvCUo6K82sTNmjIDI95tFtTWPuPM4NDniN7HW2IhjqbIZOX1
pArwMylZD2BUk+GjPbpElgWqQoFhB96pHgmS4UK94brY9wGfjo/geMWgN/kLm5OP
pGtiAhj01mDrr5qKYe8l0fQm9EVd2BTB2TI7flshB5foFFx+86LadxQdyhUciDdg
W6NHvqbEbDPoHvOqsrHg4bvxYQnsXBkDGsnC2goeZ3B1pMKt466GHoUbBtEAXXU=
=EWEN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig4A27C580FE23C3E7E55C905E--


From rra@stanford.edu  Mon Aug  1 18:50:51 2011
From: rra@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 10:50:51 -0700
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <4E36E4D7.9010308@secure-endpoints.com> (Jeffrey Altman's message
 of "Mon, 01 Aug 2011 13:39:35 -0400")
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>
 <87wrex836y.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <4E36E4D7.9010308@secure-endpoints.com>
Message-ID: <87fwll81hg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>

Jeffrey Altman <jaltman@secure-endpoints.com> writes:

> I have a strong desire to ensure that everything that can be represented
> in an NTFS file system can be represented in AFS.

Does that include timestamps prior to 1970, just to check?

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

From adeason@sinenomine.net  Mon Aug  1 18:53:44 2011
From: adeason@sinenomine.net (Andrew Deason)
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 12:53:44 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>
 <20110801122810.81b1889c.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <CAMHoRJg1C2sVXyETEyaKwP_T0GSLDLuO9_nB_n2YMEz6qWG55g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20110801125344.e9e45873.adeason@sinenomine.net>

On Mon, 1 Aug 2011 13:32:46 -0400
Derrick Brashear <shadow@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> wrote:
> 
> >> b) the granularity
> >
> > This one I still have no idea on. I see reasons for both sides.
> 
> So is there a reason an extended union with the various stamp
> granularities would be a nonstarter? In particular I'd suggest the
> draft strongly discourage
> sending a larger timestamp than actual information supports (e.g.
> don't use bits to send precision you don't have, rather than
> trailing-zero-padding a
> larger than needed number)

Well, the objection to just having 64-bit seconds and 32-bit nanoseconds
is "space", and a union tag is an extra 32 bits... If we had a "100 NS
granularity" tag, then we'd have 100-ns granularity in 96 bits, whereas
now we could have 1-ns granularity in 96 bits. Unless there's some other
scheme you're thinking of that somehow makes this more efficient?

I had some kind of variable-length scheme that encoded the granularity
in the 'unused' bits of the value for coarser granularities, but I'm
pretty sure that only saved space for the *TimeRes types, and doesn't
really help for 'plain' times.

-- 
Andrew Deason
adeason@sinenomine.net


From jaltman@secure-endpoints.com  Mon Aug  1 19:01:25 2011
From: jaltman@secure-endpoints.com (Jeffrey Altman)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 14:01:25 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <87fwll81hg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>	<4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>	<D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>	<87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>	<87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>	<87wrex836y.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<4E36E4D7.9010308@secure-endpoints.com> <87fwll81hg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <4E36E9F5.9000502@secure-endpoints.com>

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig23F50A5B2A28DAF581F3533F
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 8/1/2011 1:50 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Jeffrey Altman <jaltman@secure-endpoints.com> writes:
>=20
>> I have a strong desire to ensure that everything that can be represent=
ed
>> in an NTFS file system can be represented in AFS.
>=20
> Does that include timestamps prior to 1970, just to check?
>=20

Yes.



--------------enig23F50A5B2A28DAF581F3533F
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJONun2AAoJENxm1CNJffh4mrIIAIEPpQF6ZniJKtOR3Go0RhOo
UJihNKxv52kCD9Jsulu+C19n5L0QkqfFqXUSJNtOqU0a7M0rypzhiyOmpdKiboiB
st2NhCi50BPkbVq68+GbhzHIZLNEs3aMnV8Xhhl76e9s+rmlXy7G/bY1pMxIWYAn
zY58jFCcgeeTHf06qcGsop1VwyQX4Vy/POnbs5+YybtOxTGIvi/awa2YFaqLZeyz
pUZe8TgpYR3XODPoc6ykc/SFoD4c+PpToHEXQFHZVWbpDpMIU9M4WmbZESRGObxX
5bqOusZgx7THzk5r5nTc8BWWmp5tnPvALz+MOlHTRvFje99rwQz/Cl+luWDY/ak=
=Tflf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig23F50A5B2A28DAF581F3533F--


From rra@stanford.edu  Mon Aug  1 19:13:50 2011
From: rra@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 11:13:50 -0700
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <4E36E9F5.9000502@secure-endpoints.com> (Jeffrey Altman's message
 of "Mon, 01 Aug 2011 14:01:25 -0400")
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>
 <87wrex836y.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <4E36E4D7.9010308@secure-endpoints.com>
 <87fwll81hg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <4E36E9F5.9000502@secure-endpoints.com>
Message-ID: <871ux580f5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>

Jeffrey Altman <jaltman@secure-endpoints.com> writes:
> On 8/1/2011 1:50 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Jeffrey Altman <jaltman@secure-endpoints.com> writes:

>>> I have a strong desire to ensure that everything that can be represented
>>> in an NTFS file system can be represented in AFS.

>> Does that include timestamps prior to 1970, just to check?

> Yes.

Okay, so you *do* care about what epoch is used, unless we use a time
definition that allows for negative offsets from the epoch.

Does Microsoft have documentation for how the Windows epoch deals with
Gregorian calendar conversions and leap seconds?

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

From shadow@gmail.com  Mon Aug  1 19:19:11 2011
From: shadow@gmail.com (Derrick Brashear)
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 14:19:11 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <20110801125344.e9e45873.adeason@sinenomine.net>
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>
 <20110801122810.81b1889c.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <CAMHoRJg1C2sVXyETEyaKwP_T0GSLDLuO9_nB_n2YMEz6qWG55g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110801125344.e9e45873.adeason@sinenomine.net>
Message-ID: <CAMHoRJj9qaQfY7hQfCCRVC7NWe1mt4DUJ58_WspqOTV1JLi+8Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Aug 2011 13:32:46 -0400
> Derrick Brashear <shadow@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> b) the granularity
>> >
>> > This one I still have no idea on. I see reasons for both sides.
>>
>> So is there a reason an extended union with the various stamp
>> granularities would be a nonstarter? In particular I'd suggest the
>> draft strongly discourage
>> sending a larger timestamp than actual information supports (e.g.
>> don't use bits to send precision you don't have, rather than
>> trailing-zero-padding a
>> larger than needed number)
>
> Well, the objection to just having 64-bit seconds and 32-bit nanoseconds
> is "space", and a union tag is an extra 32 bits... If we had a "100 NS
> granularity" tag, then we'd have 100-ns granularity in 96 bits, whereas
> now we could have 1-ns granularity in 96 bits. Unless there's some other
> scheme you're thinking of that somehow makes this more efficient?

for the worst case, it's worse. for the best case, it's better. but i
suppose it may not be worth it
given that the worst case will become more prevalent over time.

> I had some kind of variable-length scheme that encoded the granularity
> in the 'unused' bits of the value for coarser granularities, but I'm
> pretty sure that only saved space for the *TimeRes types, and doesn't
> really help for 'plain' times.

and those are going to be a majority, i think.


-- 
Derrick

From tkeiser@sinenomine.net  Mon Aug  1 21:16:44 2011
From: tkeiser@sinenomine.net (Tom Keiser)
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 16:16:44 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <20110801125344.e9e45873.adeason@sinenomine.net>
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>
 <20110801122810.81b1889c.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <CAMHoRJg1C2sVXyETEyaKwP_T0GSLDLuO9_nB_n2YMEz6qWG55g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110801125344.e9e45873.adeason@sinenomine.net>
Message-ID: <CAK3rXuCqN_GwuCupEM4O=A=Svh6itj-fGLM=WNN029ntiFvb1w@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Aug 2011 13:32:46 -0400
> Derrick Brashear <shadow@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> b) the granularity
>> >
>> > This one I still have no idea on. I see reasons for both sides.
>>
>> So is there a reason an extended union with the various stamp
>> granularities would be a nonstarter? In particular I'd suggest the
>> draft strongly discourage
>> sending a larger timestamp than actual information supports (e.g.
>> don't use bits to send precision you don't have, rather than
>> trailing-zero-padding a
>> larger than needed number)
>
> Well, the objection to just having 64-bit seconds and 32-bit nanoseconds
> is "space", and a union tag is an extra 32 bits... If we had a "100 NS
> granularity" tag, then we'd have 100-ns granularity in 96 bits, whereas
> now we could have 1-ns granularity in 96 bits. Unless there's some other
> scheme you're thinking of that somehow makes this more efficient?
>

This is why in Pittsburgh we proposed that overarching structures
(e.g., AFSFetchStatus, and AFSStoreStatus) should be wrapped in
ext-union, while proscribing the use of union/ext-union for individual
members of those structures.  As I suggested last Friday, we could
define two different AFSFetchStatus/AFSStoreStatus implied legs for
now: one with 64-bit time, and a second with 96-bit time (perhaps, we
would also want to define a third leg with 32-bit time--given that
we're likely to have implementations of the protocol long before
server backing stores can handle the increased resolution)...

-Tom

From deengert@anl.gov  Mon Aug  1 21:47:47 2011
From: deengert@anl.gov (Douglas E. Engert)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 15:47:47 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Election Procedure for AFS-3 Working Group Chairs
Message-ID: <4E3710F3.3000603@anl.gov>

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wilkinson-afs3-standardisation-00.txt

Says its time for an election, typically with nominations starting
August 1, for 14 days, voting for 14 days, and 7 days to count with
the new chair starting on October 1.

It is my position that is up for election, as I have the one year
term. Hartmut Reuter is the other co-chair with the 2 year term.

Please read section 2.2.2 as to who can be nominated, and who can vote.

(We will need a list of eligible voters, from the mailman-owner
for our list. Once we get that we can start the nomination process,
and keep within the guidelines and have a chair by October 1.)

-- 

  Douglas E. Engert  <DEEngert@anl.gov>
  Argonne National Laboratory
  9700 South Cass Avenue
  Argonne, Illinois  60439
  (630) 252-5444

From jaltman@secure-endpoints.com  Mon Aug  1 22:05:36 2011
From: jaltman@secure-endpoints.com (Jeffrey Altman)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 17:05:36 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <871ux580f5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>	<4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>	<D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>	<87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>	<87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>	<87wrex836y.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<4E36E4D7.9010308@secure-endpoints.com>	<87fwll81hg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<4E36E9F5.9000502@secure-endpoints.com> <871ux580f5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <4E371520.2050905@secure-endpoints.com>

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enigF4A4B8C5B5CC41684FB59F42
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 8/1/2011 2:13 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Okay, so you *do* care about what epoch is used, unless we use a time
> definition that allows for negative offsets from the epoch.

I am fine with negative offsets from epoch if that is what people want.

> Does Microsoft have documentation for how the Windows epoch deals with
> Gregorian calendar conversions and leap seconds?

There isn't anything that pops out at me from Google.

If you can provide me a list of boundary times to check I can construct
a test application that uses SYSTEMTIME to FILETIME conversions to test
the results of various time arithmetic operations.

typedef struct _SYSTEMTIME {
  WORD wYear;
  WORD wMonth;
  WORD wDayOfWeek;
  WORD wDay;
  WORD wHour;
  WORD wMinute;
  WORD wSecond;
  WORD wMilliseconds;
} SYSTEMTIME, *PSYSTEMTIME;



--------------enigF4A4B8C5B5CC41684FB59F42
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJONxUiAAoJENxm1CNJffh4mu4H/A7+rbmqi6FER4MuMi1/q+SY
lFwytYN63cqi9l0wcFnOohPlGYHF3NoKG8U71oZiTqLYdjG5mfi/BNQAU4Y+7aQ3
117nRk16TBN3UfdJo8dn/mapBOAlP9Cw9RF0Ac8z9f7416qZ/eHASAsyNiceOvwJ
FsiQT9P03z2F+5zEb5/LUn6OGPNVHCB1HVv6TfeUM952Ksd/cmNBgozKlf+rBCDa
iiunFEF/2sgHLlaT1iQgZ3TqgfulEJCRwnOSEaD6D+lVTZpCw7AT4UELa/JCNTJj
gQ++cQnQ8PFGchd0t0IJhaoqFaAQqT+UZNMNbOvMTo9RkowPHlGqLJy5AbRF91M=
=B2Sk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enigF4A4B8C5B5CC41684FB59F42--


From shadow@gmail.com  Mon Aug  1 22:07:45 2011
From: shadow@gmail.com (Derrick Brashear)
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 17:07:45 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <CAK3rXuCqN_GwuCupEM4O=A=Svh6itj-fGLM=WNN029ntiFvb1w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>
 <20110801122810.81b1889c.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <CAMHoRJg1C2sVXyETEyaKwP_T0GSLDLuO9_nB_n2YMEz6qWG55g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110801125344.e9e45873.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <CAK3rXuCqN_GwuCupEM4O=A=Svh6itj-fGLM=WNN029ntiFvb1w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMHoRJi-++RwV7KMvy+6fCxzUdvW7GS7LQXBappDoNw2-wNmzg@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Tom Keiser <tkeiser@sinenomine.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> wr=
ote:
>> On Mon, 1 Aug 2011 13:32:46 -0400
>> Derrick Brashear <shadow@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> =
wrote:
>>>
>>> >> b) the granularity
>>> >
>>> > This one I still have no idea on. I see reasons for both sides.
>>>
>>> So is there a reason an extended union with the various stamp
>>> granularities would be a nonstarter? In particular I'd suggest the
>>> draft strongly discourage
>>> sending a larger timestamp than actual information supports (e.g.
>>> don't use bits to send precision you don't have, rather than
>>> trailing-zero-padding a
>>> larger than needed number)
>>
>> Well, the objection to just having 64-bit seconds and 32-bit nanoseconds
>> is "space", and a union tag is an extra 32 bits... If we had a "100 NS
>> granularity" tag, then we'd have 100-ns granularity in 96 bits, whereas
>> now we could have 1-ns granularity in 96 bits. Unless there's some other
>> scheme you're thinking of that somehow makes this more efficient?
>>
>
> This is why in Pittsburgh we proposed that overarching structures
> (e.g., AFSFetchStatus, and AFSStoreStatus) should be wrapped in
> ext-union, while proscribing the use of union/ext-union for individual
> members of those structures. =A0As I suggested last Friday, we could
> define two different AFSFetchStatus/AFSStoreStatus implied legs for
> now: one with 64-bit time, and a second with 96-bit time (perhaps, we
> would also want to define a third leg with 32-bit time--given that
> we're likely to have implementations of the protocol long before
> server backing stores can handle the increased resolution)...

and this approach would be fine for this, at least for a long time in
the interim.

From rra@stanford.edu  Mon Aug  1 22:16:18 2011
From: rra@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 14:16:18 -0700
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <4E371520.2050905@secure-endpoints.com> (Jeffrey Altman's message
 of "Mon, 01 Aug 2011 17:05:36 -0400")
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>
 <87wrex836y.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <4E36E4D7.9010308@secure-endpoints.com>
 <87fwll81hg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <4E36E9F5.9000502@secure-endpoints.com>
 <871ux580f5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <4E371520.2050905@secure-endpoints.com>
Message-ID: <87livc6del.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>

Jeffrey Altman <jaltman@secure-endpoints.com> writes:

> If you can provide me a list of boundary times to check I can construct
> a test application that uses SYSTEMTIME to FILETIME conversions to test
> the results of various time arithmetic operations.

> typedef struct _SYSTEMTIME {
>   WORD wYear;
>   WORD wMonth;
>   WORD wDayOfWeek;
>   WORD wDay;
>   WORD wHour;
>   WORD wMinute;
>   WORD wSecond;
>   WORD wMilliseconds;
> } SYSTEMTIME, *PSYSTEMTIME;

Usually the interesting ones for Gregorian conversion of software written
in the US are around the date of UK transition from Julian to Gregorian in
September of 1752:

    September 1752
 Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
        1  2 14 15 16
 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

(gcal is one of the few programs I know that attempts to cope with this.)

My guess is that Windows is using a backwards-projection of UTC without
leap seconds and not attempting to worry about dates that theoretically
should be in Julian, so you'll get an offset of 10 or 11 days relative to
the actual historical time when converting from a timestamp to calendar
time.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

From jaltman@secure-endpoints.com  Mon Aug  1 22:20:06 2011
From: jaltman@secure-endpoints.com (Jeffrey Altman)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 17:20:06 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <87livc6del.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>	<4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>	<D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>	<87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>	<87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>	<87wrex836y.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<4E36E4D7.9010308@secure-endpoints.com>	<87fwll81hg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<4E36E9F5.9000502@secure-endpoints.com>	<871ux580f5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<4E371520.2050905@secure-endpoints.com> <87livc6del.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <4E371886.8010307@secure-endpoints.com>

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig2647EB98B812449AC7E31696
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 8/1/2011 5:16 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Jeffrey Altman <jaltman@secure-endpoints.com> writes:
>=20
>> If you can provide me a list of boundary times to check I can construc=
t
>> a test application that uses SYSTEMTIME to FILETIME conversions to tes=
t
>> the results of various time arithmetic operations.
>=20
>> typedef struct _SYSTEMTIME {
>>   WORD wYear;
>>   WORD wMonth;
>>   WORD wDayOfWeek;
>>   WORD wDay;
>>   WORD wHour;
>>   WORD wMinute;
>>   WORD wSecond;
>>   WORD wMilliseconds;
>> } SYSTEMTIME, *PSYSTEMTIME;
>=20
> Usually the interesting ones for Gregorian conversion of software writt=
en
> in the US are around the date of UK transition from Julian to Gregorian=
 in
> September of 1752:
>=20
>     September 1752
>  Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
>         1  2 14 15 16
>  17 18 19 20 21 22 23
>  24 25 26 27 28 29 30
>=20
> (gcal is one of the few programs I know that attempts to cope with this=
=2E)
>=20
> My guess is that Windows is using a backwards-projection of UTC without=

> leap seconds and not attempting to worry about dates that theoretically=

> should be in Julian, so you'll get an offset of 10 or 11 days relative =
to
> the actual historical time when converting from a timestamp to calendar=

> time.
>=20

Provide times for a few known leap seconds and I can test those as well.



--------------enig2647EB98B812449AC7E31696
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJONxiIAAoJENxm1CNJffh49/AH/1MZZLyAQ9mIiabhFyZnFHuv
FFjEX67+JHztWs7JmIZvz6vEFtrPggpRl2CFXC9kf5dT3eNckXMI3kMEaQRz+YUN
cUats8XTrifl8BABP1u9n6xK8DWd3v+YBgrMumCn5ckVUzi+4VaQIrFqBqCfsig2
i2KN9IXVDtyHE5i0pcOxo6lmKYlgN1aMWh8gOSPXep/iQ13YvTWXBqrGxiGjzTLt
rfz9AaySkkuVKbVGtRw/WIJn+P1J3MpfPnWWpEVHOfgFJp+1Gv0n5ILUYCpxxlV/
0AOalh7nl+T/bQDR9oAfDL1kxwRCUCuO1mZbD9XLv+mdcbZ7/muv4PLLkhF85qw=
=o4oS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig2647EB98B812449AC7E31696--


From rra@stanford.edu  Mon Aug  1 22:30:35 2011
From: rra@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 14:30:35 -0700
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <4E371886.8010307@secure-endpoints.com> (Jeffrey Altman's message
 of "Mon, 01 Aug 2011 17:20:06 -0400")
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>
 <87wrex836y.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <4E36E4D7.9010308@secure-endpoints.com>
 <87fwll81hg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <4E36E9F5.9000502@secure-endpoints.com>
 <871ux580f5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <4E371520.2050905@secure-endpoints.com>
 <87livc6del.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <4E371886.8010307@secure-endpoints.com>
Message-ID: <87bow86cqs.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>

Jeffrey Altman <jaltman@secure-endpoints.com> writes:

> Provide times for a few known leap seconds and I can test those as well.

Leap seconds are always added as 23:60 on June 30th or December 31st.
There's a table at:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second

of all the leap seconds that have been added historically.  So:

    1972-06-30 23:59:59
    1972-06-30 23:59:60
    1972-07-01 00:00:00

for example.  One of the interesting questions is whether conversion of
the first and last calendar times above are, when represented as
timestamps, one second apart or two seconds apart.

Note that, in POSIX, they're one second apart, because POSIX time contains
no leap seconds by definition (which means that it's not really possible
to accurately represent those dates).

On UNIX systems, using mktime on those dates will generally convert as
follows:

    1972-06-30 23:59:59         78821999
    1972-06-30 23:59:60         78822000
    1972-07-01 00:00:00         78822000

There's not really a "right" answer here; we just need to say what the
answer is.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

From jhutz@cmu.edu  Tue Aug  2 00:17:16 2011
From: jhutz@cmu.edu (Jeffrey Hutzelman)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 19:17:16 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: Election Procedure for AFS-3 Working Group Chairs
In-Reply-To: <4E3710F3.3000603@anl.gov>
References: <4E3710F3.3000603@anl.gov>
Message-ID: <1312240636.3168.25.camel@destiny.pc.cs.cmu.edu>

On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 15:47 -0500, Douglas E. Engert wrote:
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wilkinson-afs3-standardisation-00.txt
> 
> Says its time for an election, typically with nominations starting
> August 1, for 14 days, voting for 14 days, and 7 days to count with
> the new chair starting on October 1.
> 
> It is my position that is up for election, as I have the one year
> term. Hartmut Reuter is the other co-chair with the 2 year term.
> 
> Please read section 2.2.2 as to who can be nominated, and who can vote.
> 
> (We will need a list of eligible voters, from the mailman-owner
> for our list. Once we get that we can start the nomination process,
> and keep within the guidelines and have a chair by October 1.)

According to section 2.2.2, the list of eligible voters consists of
anyone who has posted or was subscribed during the period from June 1 to
July 1.  It's fairly easy to construct a list of who has posted by
consulting the list archives, which are publicly available at
https://lists.openafs.org/pipermail/afs3-standardization/

The subscriber list is not public; however, any subscriber can obtain a
copy by filling in his username and password near the bottom of the page
at https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization and
selecting "Visit Subscriber List".  Of course, that's as of today.  To
build a voter list, you also need to know that there have been no new
subscribers and no one has unsubscribed since April 25, before the start
of the eligibility period.

-- Jeff


From deengert@anl.gov  Tue Aug  2 17:26:34 2011
From: deengert@anl.gov (Douglas E. Engert)
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 11:26:34 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Call for nomination for the position of  AFS3-standardization co-chair
Message-ID: <4E38253A.6000001@anl.gov>

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wilkinson-afs3-standardisation-00.txt

defines our election procedures to elect a co-chair. It is my position
that is up for election, as I have the one year term. Hartmut Reuter
is the other co-chair with the 2 year term, due to expire next year.

Schedule:
   Nominations open            8/2 - 8/16
   Announcement of nominations 8/17
   Voting                      8-17 - 8/31
   Election results            9/7

Please read section 2.2.2 as to who can be nominated, and who can vote.

Send nominations to Hartmut and myself as the vote takers, and we can
contact the potential nominees to make sure they are willing to serve.

As Jeff points out:
 > The subscriber list is not public; however, any subscriber can obtain a
 > copy by filling in his username and password near the bottom of the page
 > at https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization and
 > selecting "Visit Subscriber List".  Of course, that's as of today.  To
 > build a voter list, you also need to know that there have been no new
 > subscribers and no one has unsubscribed since April 25, before the start
 > of the eligibility period.

(You can also get your password sent to you with the "Edit Options")

-- 

  Douglas E. Engert  <DEEngert@anl.gov>
  Argonne National Laboratory
  9700 South Cass Avenue
  Argonne, Illinois  60439
  (630) 252-5444

From deengert@anl.gov  Fri Aug  5 20:32:15 2011
From: deengert@anl.gov (Douglas E. Engert)
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 14:32:15 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Call for nomination for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <4E38253A.6000001@anl.gov>
References: <4E38253A.6000001@anl.gov>
Message-ID: <4E3C453F.5060805@anl.gov>

I am not running for re-election and so far we have receive only one
other nomination. See the schedule below.

On 8/2/2011 11:26 AM, Douglas E. Engert wrote:
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wilkinson-afs3-standardisation-00.txt
>
> defines our election procedures to elect a co-chair. It is my position
> that is up for election, as I have the one year term. Hartmut Reuter
> is the other co-chair with the 2 year term, due to expire next year.
>
> Schedule:
> Nominations open 8/2 - 8/16
> Announcement of nominations 8/17
> Voting 8-17 - 8/31
> Election results 9/7
>
> Please read section 2.2.2 as to who can be nominated, and who can vote.
>
> Send nominations to Hartmut and myself as the vote takers, and we can
> contact the potential nominees to make sure they are willing to serve.
>
> As Jeff points out:
>  > The subscriber list is not public; however, any subscriber can obtain a
>  > copy by filling in his username and password near the bottom of the page
>  > at https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization and
>  > selecting "Visit Subscriber List". Of course, that's as of today. To
>  > build a voter list, you also need to know that there have been no new
>  > subscribers and no one has unsubscribed since April 25, before the start
>  > of the eligibility period.
>
> (You can also get your password sent to you with the "Edit Options")
>

-- 

  Douglas E. Engert  <DEEngert@anl.gov>
  Argonne National Laboratory
  9700 South Cass Avenue
  Argonne, Illinois  60439
  (630) 252-5444

From adeason@sinenomine.net  Mon Aug  8 18:32:58 2011
From: adeason@sinenomine.net (Andrew Deason)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 12:32:58 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <20110808123258.59cc0539.adeason@sinenomine.net>

On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 18:06:25 -0700
Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> wrote:

> Or, hm, I suppose if you squint at it right, you can decide that
> "number of seconds" isn't just elapsed actual time, but includes the
> leap seconds that were inserted.  Which would also work for our
> phrasing.  Maybe we could just say that explicitly.  Something like:
> 
>     the number of seconds and nanoseconds since midnight or 0 hour
>     January 1, 1970 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), including any
>     leap seconds inserted into UTC.

It's very possible I am backwards on this, but shouldn't this be
"excluding any leap seconds"? That is, in our time representation,
there is a difference of 1 "second" (however we define "second") between
the times 31 Dec 2005 23:59:59 and 01 Jan 2006 00:00:00, even though
there was a leap second at 31 Dec 2005 23:59:60. That is, I thought we'd
be following UTC more than TAI.

And also, I did find another instance of this being mentioned in IETF
RFCs. RFC 4049 states in Section 2 (at the top of the second page):

    The integer value is the number of seconds, excluding leap seconds,
    after midnight UTC, January 1, 1970.  

Would that work for us?

-- 
Andrew Deason
adeason@sinenomine.net


From rra@stanford.edu  Mon Aug  8 18:50:11 2011
From: rra@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 10:50:11 -0700
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <20110808123258.59cc0539.adeason@sinenomine.net> (Andrew Deason's
 message of "Mon, 8 Aug 2011 12:32:58 -0500")
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110808123258.59cc0539.adeason@sinenomine.net>
Message-ID: <8762m7ztbg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>

Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> writes:
> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> wrote:

>> Or, hm, I suppose if you squint at it right, you can decide that
>> "number of seconds" isn't just elapsed actual time, but includes the
>> leap seconds that were inserted.  Which would also work for our
>> phrasing.  Maybe we could just say that explicitly.  Something like:
>> 
>>     the number of seconds and nanoseconds since midnight or 0 hour
>>     January 1, 1970 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), including any
>>     leap seconds inserted into UTC.

> It's very possible I am backwards on this, but shouldn't this be
> "excluding any leap seconds"?

Oh, yes, you're exactly right.  Thank you.

> That is, in our time representation, there is a difference of 1 "second"
> (however we define "second") between the times 31 Dec 2005 23:59:59 and
> 01 Jan 2006 00:00:00, even though there was a leap second at 31 Dec 2005
> 23:59:60. That is, I thought we'd be following UTC more than TAI.

Yes, correct.

> And also, I did find another instance of this being mentioned in IETF
> RFCs. RFC 4049 states in Section 2 (at the top of the second page):

>     The integer value is the number of seconds, excluding leap seconds,
>     after midnight UTC, January 1, 1970.  

> Would that work for us?

That sounds great to me.

We could take the same approach if we use the other epoch, although I
think we should be more wordy about it:

    The integer value is the number of seconds, excluding leap seconds,
    after midnight, January 1, 1601 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), in
    the Gregorian calendar.

        NOTE: Neither the Gregorian calendar or the modern UTC time zone
        were in use in most of the world at that date, but times are
        represented as if they were, using the obvious backwards
        projection of the current UTC time zone and Gregorian calendar
        rules to January 1, 1601.  Be aware that any real-world times from
        that era will likely require Julian to Gregorian calendar
        conversions to be represented in this format and probably cannot
        be simply converted using normal time conversions from the modern
        era.

I think that phrasing would resolve my objections to the epoch, along with
the additional bits that are in the current draft about how to convert.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

From adeason@sinenomine.net  Mon Aug  8 18:54:03 2011
From: adeason@sinenomine.net (Andrew Deason)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 12:54:03 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
References: <4E2082C6.80609@anl.gov>
Message-ID: <20110808125403.f9b913b3.adeason@sinenomine.net>

On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 13:11:18 -0500
"Douglas E. Engert" <deengert@anl.gov> wrote:

> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-deason-afs3-type-time/

Based on the threads in afs3-stds, and on discussions I've had with
others, I propose the following going forward. This is what I'm working
on for an -03 draft, and it's what will appear unless I hear objections.

The epoch will be changed to the Unix epoch. Absolute time will be
signed so we can still represent the windows stuff. The language will
also be changed a bit according to Russ's suggestions ("number of
seconds since 1970 excluding leap seconds" or whatever it turns out to
be, see this sub-thread:
<http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.afs.standardization/1148/focus=1184>).

The granularity in this draft will not be changed. However, additional
types will be proposed to be used for higher efficiency and higher
granularity. That is, the current types will be AFSAbsTime64 which
corresponds to 64-bit 100-ns time, but we will also have types such as
AFSAbsTime32 (32-bit 1-s time) and AFSAbsTime96 (64-bit 1-s time plus
32-bit 1-ns). RPCs for which this matters will use some way of
accomodating and specifying these other types, but how they do so is
outside the scope of this draft (in theory this could be unions,
extended unions, separate RPCs etc; in practice right now we expect
extended unions).

In the interest of getting this i-d done as quickly as we can, the other
time types will not be added to this draft, but will be proposed in
separate i-ds and if we need to we can argue about them then. So, the
only change for draft-deason-afs3-type-time is that the type names will
be changed to AFSAbsTime64 etc, and I will include a paragraph
discussing the rationale and the future use of other time types for
interoperability and efficiency. I feel this will satisfy everyone's
concerns, as this approach should allow us to interoperate well with
other systems, but the common case should be kept nearly as efficient as
the current draft.

-- 
Andrew Deason
adeason@sinenomine.net


From adeason@sinenomine.net  Mon Aug  8 18:58:57 2011
From: adeason@sinenomine.net (Andrew Deason)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 12:58:57 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110808123258.59cc0539.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <8762m7ztbg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <20110808125857.a055922a.adeason@sinenomine.net>

On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 10:50:11 -0700
Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> wrote:

> We could take the same approach if we use the other epoch, although I
> think we should be more wordy about it:

Oh, I thought we'd just use the Unix epoch since it just makes some of
this easier. A note on converting to pre-UTC dates seems good, though.

Also just by the way, NTPv4 apparently uses an epoch in 1900. They have
this to say about it in RFC 5905:

    In the date and timestamp formats, the prime epoch, or base date of
    era 0, is 0 h 1 January 1900 UTC, when all bits are zero.  It should
    be noted that strictly speaking, UTC did not exist prior to 1
    January 1972, but it is convenient to assume it has existed for all
    eternity, even if all knowledge of historic leap seconds has been
    lost.

-- 
Andrew Deason
adeason@sinenomine.net


From rra@stanford.edu  Mon Aug  8 20:50:40 2011
From: rra@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:50:40 -0700
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <20110808125857.a055922a.adeason@sinenomine.net> (Andrew Deason's
 message of "Mon, 8 Aug 2011 12:58:57 -0500")
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110808123258.59cc0539.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <8762m7ztbg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110808125857.a055922a.adeason@sinenomine.net>
Message-ID: <87k4any967.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>

Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> writes:
> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> wrote:

>> We could take the same approach if we use the other epoch, although I
>> think we should be more wordy about it:

> Oh, I thought we'd just use the Unix epoch since it just makes some of
> this easier. A note on converting to pre-UTC dates seems good, though.

Jeffrey has a good point, though: we lose representability of dates that
can currently be handled with CIFS.

> Also just by the way, NTPv4 apparently uses an epoch in 1900. They have
> this to say about it in RFC 5905:

>     In the date and timestamp formats, the prime epoch, or base date of
>     era 0, is 0 h 1 January 1900 UTC, when all bits are zero.  It should
>     be noted that strictly speaking, UTC did not exist prior to 1
>     January 1972, but it is convenient to assume it has existed for all
>     eternity, even if all knowledge of historic leap seconds has been
>     lost.

Yeah, that's similar in intention to my note.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

From adeason@sinenomine.net  Mon Aug  8 21:42:13 2011
From: adeason@sinenomine.net (Andrew Deason)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 15:42:13 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110808123258.59cc0539.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <8762m7ztbg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110808125857.a055922a.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87k4any967.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <20110808154213.4ce21908.adeason@sinenomine.net>

On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:50:40 -0700
Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> wrote:

> Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> writes:
> > Oh, I thought we'd just use the Unix epoch since it just makes some
> > of this easier. A note on converting to pre-UTC dates seems good,
> > though.
> 
> Jeffrey has a good point, though: we lose representability of dates
> that can currently be handled with CIFS.

Then we just make the absolute timestamps signed. It just seems better
to me to start from an epoch that's a bit more well-defined (or at
least, more easily well-defined; we can always define 1 Jan 1600 as X
seconds before 1 Jan 1970, but that seems strangely indirect).

-- 
Andrew Deason
adeason@sinenomine.net


From rra@stanford.edu  Mon Aug  8 21:49:42 2011
From: rra@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:49:42 -0700
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <20110808154213.4ce21908.adeason@sinenomine.net> (Andrew Deason's
 message of "Mon, 8 Aug 2011 15:42:13 -0500")
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110808123258.59cc0539.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <8762m7ztbg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110808125857.a055922a.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87k4any967.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110808154213.4ce21908.adeason@sinenomine.net>
Message-ID: <87sjpbwrvd.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>

Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> writes:
> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> wrote:

>> Jeffrey has a good point, though: we lose representability of dates
>> that can currently be handled with CIFS.

> Then we just make the absolute timestamps signed. It just seems better
> to me to start from an epoch that's a bit more well-defined (or at
> least, more easily well-defined; we can always define 1 Jan 1600 as X
> seconds before 1 Jan 1970, but that seems strangely indirect).

I guess I'm ambivalent between signed timestamps and the Windows epoch.
Both of them are going to be at least somewhat unusual for typical UNIX
code.  My guess is that it will be easier to explain the Windows epoch
than it will be to explain signed arithmetic on times, but I could be
wrong.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

From jaltman@secure-endpoints.com  Mon Aug  8 22:25:48 2011
From: jaltman@secure-endpoints.com (Jeffrey Altman)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 17:25:48 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <20110808154213.4ce21908.adeason@sinenomine.net>
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>	<4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>	<D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>	<87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>	<87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<20110808123258.59cc0539.adeason@sinenomine.net>	<8762m7ztbg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<20110808125857.a055922a.adeason@sinenomine.net>	<87k4any967.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <20110808154213.4ce21908.adeason@sinenomine.net>
Message-ID: <4E40545C.6080600@secure-endpoints.com>

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig4AFFD422C27516B82CF3A430
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 8/8/2011 4:42 PM, Andrew Deason wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:50:40 -0700
> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> wrote:
>=20
>> Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> writes:
>>> Oh, I thought we'd just use the Unix epoch since it just makes some
>>> of this easier. A note on converting to pre-UTC dates seems good,
>>> though.
>>
>> Jeffrey has a good point, though: we lose representability of dates
>> that can currently be handled with CIFS.
>=20
> Then we just make the absolute timestamps signed. It just seems better
> to me to start from an epoch that's a bit more well-defined (or at
> least, more easily well-defined; we can always define 1 Jan 1600 as X
> seconds before 1 Jan 1970, but that seems strangely indirect).

I don't have a strong feeling about the epoch.  I am fine with negative
timestamp values.



--------------enig4AFFD422C27516B82CF3A430
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOQFRfAAoJENxm1CNJffh41zQH/1a3yikgeEdDGPesg+i901Bu
vj/9ivedJ558iUUp4IuR4lC+JB236gh9AH0Mb5lt3FTPkfkX7nM+K9ZH5zDHFhSO
O+6TPvMtogJZi94yB7O/1M0cWy+D2NbY+glWBtZCzzOYf1xOyrgSozr+D6xwykS/
pVE8NpJ4zApX/94d1pNWXa+wIRSQO1RTJ2nQR8hLCMGUFaQapwKmpAPKhglKJFFH
Jl9gvt9Pb5eCFiqq5VO+ps49Ny8lCYL/49HMeF1jGSJyWs8cDJklKq3BFCn5ansd
HzN0ksSlJC6YRlj12EtacdoG0hrym2+BNCMNh2MdPduR24av5D7Aiur0b2rrWb4=
=47yu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig4AFFD422C27516B82CF3A430--


From deengert@anl.gov  Wed Aug 10 13:48:38 2011
From: deengert@anl.gov (Douglas E. Engert)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 07:48:38 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Call for nomination for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <4E38253A.6000001@anl.gov>
References: <4E38253A.6000001@anl.gov>
Message-ID: <4E427E26.9040009@anl.gov>

Let me restate this again, we have received only one nomination,
so I have also nominated 2 people. We are waiting for these 3
people to respond that they would be willing to run.

So please send in nominations to Hartmut and myself.


On 8/2/2011 11:26 AM, Douglas E. Engert wrote:
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wilkinson-afs3-standardisation-00.txt
>
> defines our election procedures to elect a co-chair. It is my position
> that is up for election, as I have the one year term. Hartmut Reuter
> is the other co-chair with the 2 year term, due to expire next year.
>
> Schedule:
> Nominations open 8/2 - 8/16
> Announcement of nominations 8/17
> Voting 8-17 - 8/31
> Election results 9/7
>
> Please read section 2.2.2 as to who can be nominated, and who can vote.
>
> Send nominations to Hartmut and myself as the vote takers, and we can
> contact the potential nominees to make sure they are willing to serve.
>
> As Jeff points out:
>  > The subscriber list is not public; however, any subscriber can obtain a
>  > copy by filling in his username and password near the bottom of the page
>  > at https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization and
>  > selecting "Visit Subscriber List". Of course, that's as of today. To
>  > build a voter list, you also need to know that there have been no new
>  > subscribers and no one has unsubscribed since April 25, before the start
>  > of the eligibility period.
>
> (You can also get your password sent to you with the "Edit Options")
>

-- 

  Douglas E. Engert  <DEEngert@anl.gov>
  Argonne National Laboratory
  9700 South Cass Avenue
  Argonne, Illinois  60439
  (630) 252-5444
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
AFS3-standardization@openafs.org
http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization



From jhutz@cmu.edu  Wed Aug 10 13:58:17 2011
From: jhutz@cmu.edu (Jeffrey Hutzelman)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:58:17 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Call for nomination for the position of
 AFS3-standardization co-chair
In-Reply-To: <4E427E26.9040009@anl.gov>
References: <4E38253A.6000001@anl.gov>  <4E427E26.9040009@anl.gov>
Message-ID: <1312981097.3168.159.camel@destiny.pc.cs.cmu.edu>

On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 07:48 -0500, Douglas E. Engert wrote:
> Let me restate this again, we have received only one nomination,
> so I have also nominated 2 people. We are waiting for these 3
> people to respond that they would be willing to run.

Per 2.2.2, nominations are supposed to be sent to this mailing list, and
each nomination should be made and seconded by eligible voters.  I don't
see that any nominations have gone to the list so far.  It would be good
if those who have already made nominations would copy them to the list;
otherwise it will be hard to get a second. :-)

-- Jeff


From deengert@anl.gov  Wed Aug 10 14:08:24 2011
From: deengert@anl.gov (Douglas E. Engert)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:08:24 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Call for nomination for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <1312981097.3168.159.camel@destiny.pc.cs.cmu.edu>
References: <4E38253A.6000001@anl.gov>  <4E427E26.9040009@anl.gov> <1312981097.3168.159.camel@destiny.pc.cs.cmu.edu>
Message-ID: <4E4282C8.8030702@anl.gov>


On 8/10/2011 7:58 AM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 07:48 -0500, Douglas E. Engert wrote:
>> Let me restate this again, we have received only one nomination,
>> so I have also nominated 2 people. We are waiting for these 3
>> people to respond that they would be willing to run.
>
> Per 2.2.2, nominations are supposed to be sent to this mailing list, and
> each nomination should be made and seconded by eligible voters.  I don't
> see that any nominations have gone to the list so far.  It would be good
> if those who have already made nominations would copy them to the list;
> otherwise it will be hard to get a second. :-)

Good point. So far no one has indicated that they are "Any consenting individual"
so I have not put their name out. The other note sent to the vote takers,
gave a name, and I am waiting for a reply as to weither that individual
is willing.

>
> -- Jeff
>
>

-- 

  Douglas E. Engert  <DEEngert@anl.gov>
  Argonne National Laboratory
  9700 South Cass Avenue
  Argonne, Illinois  60439
  (630) 252-5444

From deengert@anl.gov  Wed Aug 10 14:45:50 2011
From: deengert@anl.gov (Douglas E. Engert)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:45:50 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Call for nomination for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <4E38253A.6000001@anl.gov>
References: <4E38253A.6000001@anl.gov>
Message-ID: <4E428B8E.9040602@anl.gov>

I (as a group member, not as co-chair) would like to place in nomination
for the co-chair of the AFS3-standardization group, Jeffrey Hutzelman.

Jeff's IETF experiences, knowledge of AFS, and
organizations skills make him an ideal candidate for the position.


On 8/2/2011 11:26 AM, Douglas E. Engert wrote:
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wilkinson-afs3-standardisation-00.txt
>
> defines our election procedures to elect a co-chair. It is my position
> that is up for election, as I have the one year term. Hartmut Reuter
> is the other co-chair with the 2 year term, due to expire next year.
>
> Schedule:
> Nominations open 8/2 - 8/16
> Announcement of nominations 8/17
> Voting 8-17 - 8/31
> Election results 9/7
>
> Please read section 2.2.2 as to who can be nominated, and who can vote.
>
> Send nominations to Hartmut and myself as the vote takers, and we can
> contact the potential nominees to make sure they are willing to serve.
>
> As Jeff points out:
>  > The subscriber list is not public; however, any subscriber can obtain a
>  > copy by filling in his username and password near the bottom of the page
>  > at https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization and
>  > selecting "Visit Subscriber List". Of course, that's as of today. To
>  > build a voter list, you also need to know that there have been no new
>  > subscribers and no one has unsubscribed since April 25, before the start
>  > of the eligibility period.
>
> (You can also get your password sent to you with the "Edit Options")
>

-- 

  Douglas E. Engert  <DEEngert@anl.gov>
  Argonne National Laboratory
  9700 South Cass Avenue
  Argonne, Illinois  60439
  (630) 252-5444

From matt@linuxbox.com  Wed Aug 10 15:10:02 2011
From: matt@linuxbox.com (Matt W. Benjamin)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 10:10:02 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [AFS3-std] Call for nomination for the position of
 AFS3-standardization co-chair
In-Reply-To: <4E428B8E.9040602@anl.gov>
Message-ID: <562730635.18.1312985402484.JavaMail.root@thunderbeast.private.linuxbox.com>

Second.

----- "Douglas E. Engert" <deengert@anl.gov> wrote:

> I (as a group member, not as co-chair) would like to place in
> nomination
> for the co-chair of the AFS3-standardization group, Jeffrey
> Hutzelman.
> 
> Jeff's IETF experiences, knowledge of AFS, and
> organizations skills make him an ideal candidate for the position.
> 
> 
-- 

Matt Benjamin

The Linux Box
206 South Fifth Ave. Suite 150
Ann Arbor, MI  48104

http://linuxbox.com

tel. 734-761-4689
fax. 734-769-8938
cel. 734-216-5309

From jaltman@secure-endpoints.com  Wed Aug 10 16:00:04 2011
From: jaltman@secure-endpoints.com (Jeffrey Altman)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:00:04 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Call for nomination for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <562730635.18.1312985402484.JavaMail.root@thunderbeast.private.linuxbox.com>
References: <562730635.18.1312985402484.JavaMail.root@thunderbeast.private.linuxbox.com>
Message-ID: <4E429CF4.5060705@secure-endpoints.com>

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig4E96346D395F7DE12DCC99A3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 8/10/2011 10:10 AM, Matt W. Benjamin wrote:
> Second.
>=20
> ----- "Douglas E. Engert" <deengert@anl.gov> wrote:
>=20
>> I (as a group member, not as co-chair) would like to place in
>> nomination
>> for the co-chair of the AFS3-standardization group, Jeffrey
>> Hutzelman.
>>
>> Jeff's IETF experiences, knowledge of AFS, and
>> organizations skills make him an ideal candidate for the position.
>>
>>

I believe that Jeff would make an excellent chair (if he has time) but
would prefer that the Chair not also be a registrar.



--------------enig4E96346D395F7DE12DCC99A3
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOQpz3AAoJENxm1CNJffh4YcYH/2UAYaa+ASU7rCdoqMODFk1D
efEUmqC1fwllQ+RCfTLzBJdLUM/9a0tT4/EPmKtfQ+TqGAAfe56ncmykpwDsSM+w
qsNOPxC+5J9YpAi9CCsNx0i6ynuTAd7i/pLrxl2ZbBGIgHXcTx+GqVLneummsdvb
I4KLDxYYIZOhz6LTywKZBIfrm5JuO3SUI1W8JQ+1BbTXjyRl6u+N5qW+8p4JGy0q
G7ZXnLMmJwYuW8XqaJqG+q0LOuGiKcggYX9Gzs9o4lGp0B+l0Jf2LftM1Vp8epUO
aBAVyhW7MF3tZQEys3K0/r6GVnSiQqJuAB01FTzD5M86wdsnuLp7XW/njYcuy+Y=
=EpGd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig4E96346D395F7DE12DCC99A3--


From deengert@anl.gov  Wed Aug 10 16:22:50 2011
From: deengert@anl.gov (Douglas E. Engert)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 10:22:50 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Call for nomination for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <4E429CF4.5060705@secure-endpoints.com>
References: <562730635.18.1312985402484.JavaMail.root@thunderbeast.private.linuxbox.com> <4E429CF4.5060705@secure-endpoints.com>
Message-ID: <4E42A24A.6090206@anl.gov>


On 8/10/2011 10:00 AM, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
> On 8/10/2011 10:10 AM, Matt W. Benjamin wrote:
>> Second.
>>
>> ----- "Douglas E. Engert"<deengert@anl.gov>  wrote:
>>
>>> I (as a group member, not as co-chair) would like to place in
>>> nomination
>>> for the co-chair of the AFS3-standardization group, Jeffrey
>>> Hutzelman.
>>>
>>> Jeff's IETF experiences, knowledge of AFS, and
>>> organizations skills make him an ideal candidate for the position.
>>>
>>>
>
> I believe that Jeff would make an excellent chair (if he has time) but
> would prefer that the Chair not also be a registrar.

I understand.  Section 2.3.2 says: "it is proposed to extend the role of
registrar to include a number of individuals from the community."
So the work could be spread around if that is the issue.

>
>

-- 

  Douglas E. Engert  <DEEngert@anl.gov>
  Argonne National Laboratory
  9700 South Cass Avenue
  Argonne, Illinois  60439
  (630) 252-5444

From scs@umich.edu  Wed Aug 10 16:53:37 2011
From: scs@umich.edu (Steve Simmons)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:53:37 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <87bow86cqs.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org> <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu> <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk> <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net> <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk> <87wrex836y.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <4E36E4D7.9010308@secure-endpoints.com> <87fwll81hg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <4E36E9F5.9000502@secure-endpoints.com> <871ux580f5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <4E371520.2050905@secure-endpoints.com> <87livc6del.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <4E371886.8010307@secure-endpoints.com> <87bow86cqs.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <11B3F212-2286-4452-9917-88D390C380BD@umich.edu>

On Aug 1, 2011, at 5:30 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:

> . . . One of the interesting questions is whether conversion of
> the first and last calendar times above are, when represented as
> timestamps, one second apart or two seconds apart.
>=20
> Note that, in POSIX, they're one second apart, because POSIX time =
contains
> no leap seconds by definition (which means that it's not really =
possible
> to accurately represent those dates).
>=20
> On UNIX systems, using mktime on those dates will generally convert as
> follows:
>=20
>    1972-06-30 23:59:59         78821999
>    1972-06-30 23:59:60         78822000
>    1972-07-01 00:00:00         78822000
>=20
> There's not really a "right" answer here; we just need to say what the
> answer is.

The last paragraph says it, both w/r/t the POSIX issues above and the =
various other time issues discussed in this thread. We don't need to be =
absolutely right*, nor do we necessarily need to be fully in agreement =
with any other vendor or standards system. We just need to say what we =
are doing.

I proposed we be broken in the same way POSIX is broken, rather than =
being any other brand of broken or inventing our own. :-)

Steve

* IMHO 'absolutely right' would involved knowing what is right, and =
presenting to all the other broken implementations their expected broken =
data. The former is beyond our scope and abilities, the latter . . . =
well, that way lies madness. Let's face it, 99.99% of the time all we're =
talking about are filesystem timestamps. If someone wants to touch a =
file with the date Sept 10 1752 and not specify anything else about how =
to interpret that date, they deserve the wrongness they get. And anybody =
who's doing work where leap seconds and calendar type transitions matter =
is not doing it using POSIX, Windows, or any other OS-time =
representation.**

** No, I have no freaking idea what they're using.=

From deengert@anl.gov  Wed Aug 10 22:15:26 2011
From: deengert@anl.gov (Douglas E. Engert)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 16:15:26 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] AFS3-standardization Co-Chair Nominations time commitments
Message-ID: <4E42F4EE.7020807@anl.gov>

One of the potential nominees asked:

 > Can you give me some idea of what time commitment is required?

So far it has been only a few hours a week, but depending on how much you
want to get involved, and how many drafts are active, it could be more.

There are no meeting you have to attend, and the duties of a co-chair are to
keep the group inline, and moving.  A co-chair could then leave it up to the
author of a draft to handle all the issues for a draft or get more involved
if this is not happening. (So far that has not been a problem.)

The chair does not have to be an expert in the details of a draft, but needs
to recognize that others in the group have issues and if there is general
consensuses for a draft.

After consensuses, we are submitting our drafts as IETF Independent
Submissions to the RFC editor. As this process is designed for individuals,
not groups, I have left the submission up to the authors.  We are breaking
ground as a group in submitting a  group approved draft in this way.

We have our first draft in that state waiting for the three reviewers (they
know who they are) to get their reviews in to the RFC Editor. I have had some
e-mail discussions with the IETF RFC Editor on this process.
on behalf of the group.

When the first draft is reviewed, I expect that there will be some additional
text that needs  to be added to the draft, and to all our drafts. The
individual authors of the drafts will have to do this. It is up to the Chair
to keep after them.

There are two chairs, Hartmut is the co-chair, for one more year, and the new
co-chair will have a 2 year term. So it is up to the chairs how the work is
split, and how much time you want to put into it.

-- 

  Douglas E. Engert  <DEEngert@anl.gov>
  Argonne National Laboratory
  9700 South Cass Avenue
  Argonne, Illinois  60439
  (630) 252-5444

From adeason@sinenomine.net  Fri Aug 12 17:31:02 2011
From: adeason@sinenomine.net (Andrew Deason)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 11:31:02 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: Call for nomination for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <4E38253A.6000001@anl.gov>
References: <4E38253A.6000001@anl.gov>
Message-ID: <20110812113102.6efde0c0.adeason@sinenomine.net>

I nominate Mike Meffie for co-chair of the AFS3 standardization group.

-- 
Andrew Deason
adeason@sinenomine.net

From jhutz@cmu.edu  Fri Aug 12 22:08:57 2011
From: jhutz@cmu.edu (Jeffrey Hutzelman)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 17:08:57 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Call for nomination for the position of
 AFS3-standardization co-chair
In-Reply-To: <4E429CF4.5060705@secure-endpoints.com>
References: <562730635.18.1312985402484.JavaMail.root@thunderbeast.private.linuxbox.com>
 <4E429CF4.5060705@secure-endpoints.com>
Message-ID: <1313183337.3168.275.camel@destiny.pc.cs.cmu.edu>

On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 11:00 -0400, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
> On 8/10/2011 10:10 AM, Matt W. Benjamin wrote:
> > Second.
> > 
> > ----- "Douglas E. Engert" <deengert@anl.gov> wrote:
> > 
> >> I (as a group member, not as co-chair) would like to place in
> >> nomination
> >> for the co-chair of the AFS3-standardization group, Jeffrey
> >> Hutzelman.
> >>
> >> Jeff's IETF experiences, knowledge of AFS, and
> >> organizations skills make him an ideal candidate for the position.

Accept.



> I believe that Jeff would make an excellent chair (if he has time) but
> would prefer that the Chair not also be a registrar.

I'd very much like to take a -- I was going to say "less active", but I
really mean more like "less blocking" -- role in the registrar process.
We actually have other registrars; perhaps if we can get them truly spun
up to the point where they are handling day-to-day requests, such things
can actually be handled day-to-day.

That said, I don't think there's a strong conflict here; neither chairs
nor registrars are intended as a check on the power of the other.

-- Jeff


From matt@linuxbox.com  Sat Aug 13 01:03:09 2011
From: matt@linuxbox.com (Matt W. Benjamin)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 20:03:09 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: Call for nomination for the position of
 AFS3-standardization co-chair
In-Reply-To: <20110812113102.6efde0c0.adeason@sinenomine.net>
Message-ID: <1764277117.94.1313193789600.JavaMail.root@thunderbeast.private.linuxbox.com>

Hi,

I will second this, I assume it means Mike is a volunteer.

Matt

----- "Andrew Deason" <adeason@sinenomine.net> wrote:

> I nominate Mike Meffie for co-chair of the AFS3 standardization
> group.
> 
> -- 
> Andrew Deason
> adeason@sinenomine.net
> _______________________________________________
> AFS3-standardization mailing list
> AFS3-standardization@openafs.org
> http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization

-- 

Matt Benjamin

The Linux Box
206 South Fifth Ave. Suite 150
Ann Arbor, MI  48104

http://linuxbox.com

tel. 734-761-4689
fax. 734-769-8938
cel. 734-216-5309

From deengert@anl.gov  Tue Aug 16 15:09:01 2011
From: deengert@anl.gov (Douglas E. Engert)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 09:09:01 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Fwd: Re: [rfc-ise] AFS3 Standardization  and Independent Submissions
Message-ID: <4E4A79FD.2000808@anl.gov>

Our first draft is moving through the IETF Independent Submission Process=
,
and is now waiting for the author.

As far as I know, the two other reviewers have not sent in their reviews.
and it would be good have have all the reviews in before submitting a new=
 draft.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [rfc-ise] AFS3 Standardization  and Independent Submissions
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 17:15:07 -0700
From: Nevil Brownlee <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org>
Organization: Independent Stream
To: Derrick Brashear <shadow@gmail.com>
CC: ISE <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org>, Hartmut Reuter <reuter@rzg.mpg.de>,  "D=
ouglas E. Engert" <deengert@anl.gov>


Hi Derrick:

Henry Hotz has sent me the appended review of your draft, so I've changed
its state to ISR-AUTH.  Would you please consider his comments, and publi=
sh
a new revision that addresses them.

I'm still waiting for reviews from Simon Wilkinson and Jeff Altman, I'll
prod them now!

Cheers, Nevil


On 08/01/2011 06:21 PM, Henry B. Hotz wrote:
> I've looked at<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brashear-afs3-pts-exten=
ded-names-09>  and it is generally fine per-se as to content.
>
> What I see as significant problems are historical artifacts of the stan=
dardization process.  This document updates a protocol that does not have=
 a pre-existing standard description.  Consequently, there are a number o=
f things which are referenced, but not defined.
>
> The biggie is the Rx protocol itself.  The standard reference for that =
is Ed Zayas' "AFS-3 Programmer=92s Reference: Specification for the Rx Re=
mote Procedure Call Facility", Version 1.2 of 28 August 1991.  I don't kn=
ow if that should be a normative or informative reference.  I'm inclined =
to say informative since it isn't a standards document and wasn't even re=
ally binding on Transarc when they put it out.
>
> That document appears to define everything which I had marked as needin=
g definition when I read the draft.
>
> The following comments are just nits:
>
> An informative reference to "AFS-3 Programmer=92s Reference: Architectu=
ral Overview" might also be useful, but not necessary.  (It's referenced =
by the Rx doc anyway.)
>
> Section 6 makes no mention of how an entity is authenticated.  Not sure=
 it needs to, but I felt funny about it.
>
> The sentence "It is expected. . ." near the top of page 6 seems unclear=
 to me.  More generally the language concerning how names are to be compa=
red stays strictly to what the GSSAPI standards say.  Speaking from exper=
ience people violate the "MUST NOT" because they need to deal with case-f=
olding caused by Microsoft Active Directory.  I wish I had some standards=
-confoming procedure which also worked with AD without deployment convent=
ions or other presumptions, but I don't.  Absent such a thing I can't sug=
gest (or even ask for) changes, but I could wish for some language that b=
etter reflected practical necessity.
>
> The PrCapabilities line near the top of page 7 should be indented one m=
ore level.
>
>
> On Jun 1, 2011, at 7:00 PM, Nevil Brownlee wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Henry:
>>
>> It's been about three weeks since you volunteered to review
>> the draft: draft-brashear-afs3-pts-extended-names
>>
>> Can you estimate when you'll be able to send me the review,
>> please?
>>
>> Cheers, Nevil
>>
>>
>> On 9/05/11 12:26 PM, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
>>> Nevil:
>>>
>>> Both Simon and I will do so.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Jeffrey Altman
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/8/2011 6:45 PM, Nevil Brownlee wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Douglas:
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you've defined 'independent reviewer' correctly.
>>>>
>>>> Two reviews would be enough, that would be Henry (not involved
>>>> in AFS3 efforts) and one other - Simon and Jeff, could you please
>>>> decide which of you will do it? (Of course, if you'd both like to,
>>>> that would be fine too).
>>>>
>>>> Here's the note I usually send to prospective reviewers:
>>>>
>>>>    "would you be prepared to do a more detailed review, with two
>>>>     parts:
>>>>      a) Comments for the Authors
>>>>           Reasons for rejection or suggestions for improvements.
>>>>           These will be returned to authors (or you may wish to have
>>>>           email discussions directly with authors).  Could they also
>>>>           be published on the Independent Submissions web site,
>>>>           either as public reviews or as anonymous reviews?
>>>>      b) Comments for the Independent Submissions Editor
>>>>          These are advice to the ISE, and will not be published."
>>>>
>>>> Cheers, Nevil
>>
>> --
>> Nevil Brownlee (ISE), rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> The opinions expressed in this message are mine,
> not those of Caltech, JPL, NASA, or the US Government.
> Henry.B.Hotz@jpl.nasa.gov, or hbhotz@oxy.edu
>
>
>


--=20
Nevil Brownlee (ISE), rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org



From mmeffie@sinenomine.net  Tue Aug 16 17:40:41 2011
From: mmeffie@sinenomine.net (Michael Meffie)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:40:41 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: Call for nomination for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <1764277117.94.1313193789600.JavaMail.root@thunderbeast.private.linuxbox.com>
References: <1764277117.94.1313193789600.JavaMail.root@thunderbeast.private.linuxbox.com>
Message-ID: <4E4A9D89.50600@sinenomine.net>

Matt W. Benjamin wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I will second this, I assume it means Mike is a volunteer.

Yes, thank you. I do accept the nomination.

Mike --

From deengert@anl.gov  Wed Aug 17 19:55:01 2011
From: deengert@anl.gov (Douglas E. Engert)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 13:55:01 -0500
Subject: Fwd: [AFS3-std] Call for nomination for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
Message-ID: <4E4C0E85.90908@anl.gov>

Today is the day to announce the nominations. But I am having
problems getting in touch with our co-chair, Hartmut. The
co-chairs have to agree on the nominations, and count the votes.

I have not heard from him since March. I have a note into
3 contacts and the secretaries at rzg.mpg.de to see if
they know anything. (They may not see the note till tomorrow.)

Has anyone heard anything?

(It could just be August is vacation time for many of us, and
in the  future we should consider moving back the elections
till a month or two.)


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [AFS3-std] Call for nomination for the position of  AFS3-standardization co-chair
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 11:26:34 -0500
From: Douglas E. Engert <deengert@anl.gov>
To: afs3-standardization@openafs.org <afs3-standardization@openafs.org>
CC: Hartmut Reuter <reuter@rzg.mpg.de>,	"Douglas E. Engert" <deengert@anl.gov>

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wilkinson-afs3-standardisation-00.txt

defines our election procedures to elect a co-chair. It is my position
that is up for election, as I have the one year term. Hartmut Reuter
is the other co-chair with the 2 year term, due to expire next year.

Schedule:
   Nominations open            8/2 - 8/16
   Announcement of nominations 8/17
   Voting                      8-17 - 8/31
   Election results            9/7

Please read section 2.2.2 as to who can be nominated, and who can vote.

Send nominations to Hartmut and myself as the vote takers, and we can
contact the potential nominees to make sure they are willing to serve.

As Jeff points out:
> The subscriber list is not public; however, any subscriber can obtain a
> copy by filling in his username and password near the bottom of the page
> at https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization and
> selecting "Visit Subscriber List".  Of course, that's as of today.  To
> build a voter list, you also need to know that there have been no new
> subscribers and no one has unsubscribed since April 25, before the start
> of the eligibility period.

(You can also get your password sent to you with the "Edit Options")

-- 

  Douglas E. Engert  <DEEngert@anl.gov>
  Argonne National Laboratory
  9700 South Cass Avenue
  Argonne, Illinois  60439
  (630) 252-5444
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
AFS3-standardization@openafs.org
http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization



From jaltman@secure-endpoints.com  Thu Aug 18 02:46:45 2011
From: jaltman@secure-endpoints.com (Jeffrey Altman)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 21:46:45 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <87k4any967.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>	<4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>	<D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>	<87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>	<87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<20110808123258.59cc0539.adeason@sinenomine.net>	<8762m7ztbg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<20110808125857.a055922a.adeason@sinenomine.net> <87k4any967.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <4E4C6F05.2070701@secure-endpoints.com>

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig960E6E28E0B52C10FA2FA539
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I came across this today which might be of interest:

http://data.iers.org/products/16/14844/orig/bulletinc-042.txt

Quoting:

"IMPORTANT: After years of discussions, a proposal to fundamentally
redefine UTC will come to a conclusive vote in January 2012 at the ITU-R
in Geneva.

"This proposal would halt the intercalary adjustments known as leap
seconds that maintain UTC as a form of Universal Time."


If the proposal is approved it the definition would change in five years
from the vote.

Our input will be accepted on the subject until the end of August.
There are some interesting papers linked from the questionnaire.

http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/index.php?index=3Dquestionnaire



--------------enig960E6E28E0B52C10FA2FA539
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOTG8IAAoJENxm1CNJffh4YwoH+gLXPdKaRz766xaAh+8gt6J8
sYjHtmMlBr5PWOaPMBi5LUS/QAXTyhZS/EfyxMang48B/ByM44h07nhtXoe+qW9f
xk9s0+s3UnPbjpw3+USi9LoeBgAW2x+LVMpL76be9DBM+iTQ2VQT0KrY9cu7Jy+v
mGkLWImwfVkGUQczUdvzKNA1oyAm1VdJuYhOFx7meLK3HBmmJL4wSDizb6HiU7Ze
s5tp1NLMSctvTJItRSXb9OebXQEEzlSqyVjG1VXOk1GSaGX7sExPZT3fDc//NcV4
GeeiqaUL4eonGcPoKTYn+bBtaXRMZlJKYrUDTolPZ0b4MophVkmr5uA1bmm+GRU=
=txEM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig960E6E28E0B52C10FA2FA539--


From reuter@rzg.mpg.de  Thu Aug 18 13:26:53 2011
From: reuter@rzg.mpg.de (Hartmut Reuter)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:26:53 +0200
Subject: Fwd: [AFS3-std] Call for nomination for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <4E4C0E85.90908@anl.gov>
References: <4E4C0E85.90908@anl.gov>
Message-ID: <4E4D050D.2050201@rzg.mpg.de>

Douglas E. Engert wrote:
> Today is the day to announce the nominations. But I am having
> problems getting in touch with our co-chair, Hartmut. The
> co-chairs have to agree on the nominations, and count the votes.
>
> I have not heard from him since March. I have a note into
> 3 contacts and the secretaries at rzg.mpg.de to see if
> they know anything. (They may not see the note till tomorrow.)
>
> Has anyone heard anything?
>
> (It could just be August is vacation time for many of us, and
> in the future we should consider moving back the elections
> till a month or two.)
>

Doug,

sorry for the delay, I was in holidays without access to my mail, but now I am 
back. I have now followed the last weeks of the mailing list and it seems to me 
that there are only three nominations:

Kim Kimball
Jeffrey Hutzelman
Mike Meffie

where Kim still hasn't replied to the question if he would accept his nomination.

So now we either could follow strictly Simon Wilkinson's proposal and start the 
voting with two candidates or we could do it less strictly and wait for an 
answer of Kim before starting the voting.

What do you prefer, Doug? I am open for both ways.

Hartmut


>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [AFS3-std] Call for nomination for the position of
> AFS3-standardization co-chair
> Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 11:26:34 -0500
> From: Douglas E. Engert <deengert@anl.gov>
> To: afs3-standardization@openafs.org <afs3-standardization@openafs.org>
> CC: Hartmut Reuter <reuter@rzg.mpg.de>, "Douglas E. Engert"
> <deengert@anl.gov>
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wilkinson-afs3-standardisation-00.txt
>
> defines our election procedures to elect a co-chair. It is my position
> that is up for election, as I have the one year term. Hartmut Reuter
> is the other co-chair with the 2 year term, due to expire next year.
>
> Schedule:
> Nominations open 8/2 - 8/16
> Announcement of nominations 8/17
> Voting 8-17 - 8/31
> Election results 9/7
>
> Please read section 2.2.2 as to who can be nominated, and who can vote.
>
> Send nominations to Hartmut and myself as the vote takers, and we can
> contact the potential nominees to make sure they are willing to serve.
>
> As Jeff points out:
>> The subscriber list is not public; however, any subscriber can obtain a
>> copy by filling in his username and password near the bottom of the page
>> at https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization and
>> selecting "Visit Subscriber List". Of course, that's as of today. To
>> build a voter list, you also need to know that there have been no new
>> subscribers and no one has unsubscribed since April 25, before the start
>> of the eligibility period.
>
> (You can also get your password sent to you with the "Edit Options")
>


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hartmut Reuter                  e-mail 		reuter@rzg.mpg.de
			   	phone 		 +49-89-3299-1328
			   	fax   		 +49-89-3299-1301
RZG (Rechenzentrum Garching)   	web    http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~hwr
Computing Center of the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (MPG) and the
Institut fuer Plasmaphysik (IPP)
-----------------------------------------------------------------

From deengert@anl.gov  Thu Aug 18 15:18:24 2011
From: deengert@anl.gov (Douglas E. Engert)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 09:18:24 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization co-chair
Message-ID: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov>

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wilkinson-afs3-standardisation-00.txt

defines our election procedures to elect a co-chair for a 2 year term
starting October 1. In the option of the co-chairs we have two candidates:

Jeffrey Hutzelman
Mike Meffie

Jeff was nominated by Doug Engert and seconded by Matt W. Benjamin.
Mike was nominated by Andrew Deason and seconded by Matt Benjamin.


I am revising the schedule so voting starts today, and and
on September 1.

Schedule:
   Nominations open            8/2 - 8/16
   Announcement of nominations 8/18         * revised
   Voting                      8-18 - 9/1   * revised
   Election results            9/7

Please read section 2.2.2 as to who can vote.

Send votes to Hartmut and myself as the vote takers, *NOT* to the list.
Please use the subject of this email for voting, you can
reply to it, but *NOT* to the full list.




-- 

  Douglas E. Engert  <DEEngert@anl.gov>
  Argonne National Laboratory
  9700 South Cass Avenue
  Argonne, Illinois  60439
  (630) 252-5444
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
AFS3-standardization@openafs.org
http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization



From simon@sxw.org.uk  Thu Aug 18 15:30:02 2011
From: simon@sxw.org.uk (Simon Wilkinson)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 15:30:02 +0100
Subject: [AFS3-std] Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization co-chair
In-Reply-To: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov>
References: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov>
Message-ID: <9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk>

As an elector, it would help me in casting my vote if the candidates =
would be prepared to say something on the list about their vision for =
the standardisation process, what time they are prepared to devote to =
the job, and how they think we can best move things forwards.

Thanks,

Simon.


From dboyes@sinenomine.net  Thu Aug 18 18:20:24 2011
From: dboyes@sinenomine.net (David Boyes)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:20:24 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk>
References: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov>
 <9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk>
Message-ID: <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72D3@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>

> As an elector, it would help me in casting my vote if the candidates woul=
d be
> prepared to say something on the list about their vision for the
> standardisation process, what time they are prepared to devote to the job=
,
> and how they think we can best move things forwards.

While an excellent idea, it's not in the process right now. Since we have a=
lready started the voting, shouldn't we postpone introducing this until nex=
t time (and put this in the charter doc)?

-- db


From jaltman@secure-endpoints.com  Thu Aug 18 18:28:01 2011
From: jaltman@secure-endpoints.com (Jeffrey Altman)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 13:28:01 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization co-chair
In-Reply-To: <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72D3@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
References: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov> <9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk> <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72D3@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
Message-ID: <4E4D4BA1.8000809@secure-endpoints.com>

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig8FEAB52BF40AA5AACDC0015E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 8/18/2011 1:20 PM, David Boyes wrote:
>> As an elector, it would help me in casting my vote if the candidates w=
ould be
>> prepared to say something on the list about their vision for the
>> standardisation process, what time they are prepared to devote to the =
job,
>> and how they think we can best move things forwards.
>=20
> While an excellent idea, it's not in the process right now. Since we ha=
ve already started the voting, shouldn't we postpone introducing this unt=
il next time (and put this in the charter doc)?
>=20
> -- db

I see no reason why people who are running for an office should feel it
within their own powers to communicate with those they are intending to
serve.

A failure to respond to a request from the community is an indication to
me that I shouldn't vote for the unresponsive nominee.  It has nothing
to do with what is or is not required by the process.

Jeffrey Altman


--------------enig8FEAB52BF40AA5AACDC0015E
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOTUukAAoJENxm1CNJffh45ngH/3X9SN15SrE6MsBoO2ogdT6x
OFHIdXFtOIAC2rHsea1BYBbOfr6e7j//sTvjoTwoQXJDTOa6od2qHy3lh8MI2n/P
uaUf/WtsgP9Ad5Hx73oNwSzIUG6IL68j3G/9x1tRUbWgktBUGNo0DKJhvMDB7ZGr
F0aQqAyNV8v9gEN8S4i3xjBl1Khk0sJ5ECBZxryUXEsXe/MreVHhntKV7kAe19BW
fnjOh0noa1jA1VJYXTT29YrgPBc2lfjM5dNXHmaVefWul3Xi7XY3HSaJvDEQQ1WK
FWYIjmlfd1qXjybae1duFODOjQb2Cnr8jvsHBgRhB0xjTXiIrNu2xYYC2swd/yw=
=3+Iy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig8FEAB52BF40AA5AACDC0015E--


From dboyes@sinenomine.net  Thu Aug 18 18:38:48 2011
From: dboyes@sinenomine.net (David Boyes)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:38:48 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <4E4D4BA1.8000809@secure-endpoints.com>
References: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov>
 <9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72D3@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <4E4D4BA1.8000809@secure-endpoints.com>
Message-ID: <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72EF@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>

PiBBIGZhaWx1cmUgdG8gcmVzcG9uZCB0byBhIHJlcXVlc3QgZnJvbSB0aGUgY29tbXVuaXR5IGlz
IGFuIGluZGljYXRpb24gdG8gbWUNCj4gdGhhdCBJIHNob3VsZG4ndCB2b3RlIGZvciB0aGUgdW5y
ZXNwb25zaXZlIG5vbWluZWUuICBJdCBoYXMgbm90aGluZyB0byBkbyB3aXRoDQo+IHdoYXQgaXMg
b3IgaXMgbm90IHJlcXVpcmVkIGJ5IHRoZSBwcm9jZXNzLg0KDQpJIGRpc2FncmVlLiBXZSdyZSBj
aGFuZ2luZyB0aGUgcnVsZXMgbWlkLXN0cmVhbS4gDQoNClJpZ2h0IG5vdywgdGhlcmUgaXMgbm8g
cmVxdWlyZW1lbnQgZm9yIGFueW9uZSB0byBwcm92aWRlIGEgc3RhdGVtZW50LiBJZiBzb21lb25l
IGRvZXMsIHRoZW4gZ29vZCBmb3IgdGhlbSwgYnV0IHdlIHNob3VsZG4ndCBwZW5hbGl6ZSBwZW9w
bGUgZm9yIG5vdCBtYWtpbmcgb25lIGlmIGl0IGlzbid0IHJlcXVpcmVkIGJ5IHRoZSBwcm9jZXNz
LiBJdCdzIG5vdCBhIGZhaXIgZXZhbHVhdGlvbiBpZiBldmVyeW9uZSBkb2Vzbid0IGhhdmUgdG8g
cGxheSBieSB0aGUgc2FtZSBydWxlcy4gDQpFaXRoZXIgbWFrZSBpdCByZXF1aXJlZCBmb3IgZXZl
cnlvbmUsIG9yIGRvbid0IGRvIGl0IChmb3IgdGhpcyB0aW1lKS4gDQoNCi0tIGRiDQoNCg==

From adeason@sinenomine.net  Thu Aug 18 18:49:03 2011
From: adeason@sinenomine.net (Andrew Deason)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 13:49:03 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization co-chair
References: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov>
 <9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72D3@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <4E4D4BA1.8000809@secure-endpoints.com>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72EF@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
Message-ID: <20110818134903.a314437f.adeason@sinenomine.net>

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:38:48 -0500
David Boyes <dboyes@sinenomine.net> wrote:

> > A failure to respond to a request from the community is an
> > indication to me that I shouldn't vote for the unresponsive nominee.
> > It has nothing to do with what is or is not required by the process.
> 
> I disagree. We're changing the rules mid-stream. 
> 
> Right now, there is no requirement for anyone to provide a statement.
> If someone does, then good for them, but we shouldn't penalize people
> for not making one if it isn't required by the process.

The only "penalty" is that Jeff won't vote for them; nowhere do I see
that Jeff is suggesting that such candidates would be disqualified or
anything like that. Jeff is just expressing a desire as a voter, as far
as I can read. It seems good that voters express such opinions, so
candidates know what the voters are specifically looking for, if
anything.

I don't envision myself caring about position statements, but if Jeff
does, then... good for him.

-- 
Andrew Deason
adeason@sinenomine.net


From dboyes@sinenomine.net  Thu Aug 18 18:53:43 2011
From: dboyes@sinenomine.net (David Boyes)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:53:43 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <20110818134903.a314437f.adeason@sinenomine.net>
References: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov>
 <9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72D3@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <4E4D4BA1.8000809@secure-endpoints.com>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72EF@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <20110818134903.a314437f.adeason@sinenomine.net>
Message-ID: <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E7304@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>

> The only "penalty" is that Jeff won't vote for them; nowhere do I see tha=
t
> Jeff is suggesting that such candidates would be disqualified or anything=
 like
> that. Jeff is just expressing a desire as a voter, as far as I can read.

Which prima facie gives the people who do supply a statement an advantage i=
n that at least one voter will not vote for a candidate that does not suppl=
y a statement.=20

>  It seems
> good that voters express such opinions, so candidates know what the voter=
s
> are specifically looking for, if anything.

Agreed. But then all candidates should supply them.=20
=20
> I don't envision myself caring about position statements, but if Jeff doe=
s,
> then... good for him.

I would like them too. But I want them from all candidates so that I'm comp=
aring apples to apples, and that every candidate has an equal probability o=
f receiving votes from all the electors.=20


From rra@stanford.edu  Thu Aug 18 18:57:07 2011
From: rra@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 10:57:07 -0700
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization co-chair
In-Reply-To: <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E7304@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 (David Boyes's message of "Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:53:43 -0500")
References: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov>
 <9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72D3@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <4E4D4BA1.8000809@secure-endpoints.com>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72EF@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <20110818134903.a314437f.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E7304@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
Message-ID: <87aab6bo24.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>

David Boyes <dboyes@sinenomine.net> writes:

> I would like them too. But I want them from all candidates so that I'm
> comparing apples to apples, and that every candidate has an equal
> probability of receiving votes from all the electors.

You are free to reflect that desire in the way that you vote, in the same
way that others are free to reflect their desires for statements in the
way that they vote.  The rules, so far as I know, don't put any
restrictions on what factors influence the votes of the people who are
eligible to vote.

I suspect we've already exerted more effort arguing about this than it
really warranted.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

From adeason@sinenomine.net  Thu Aug 18 19:02:23 2011
From: adeason@sinenomine.net (Andrew Deason)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:02:23 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization co-chair
References: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov>
 <9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72D3@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <4E4D4BA1.8000809@secure-endpoints.com>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72EF@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <20110818134903.a314437f.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E7304@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
Message-ID: <20110818140223.c5382fd3.adeason@sinenomine.net>

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:53:43 -0500
David Boyes <dboyes@sinenomine.net> wrote:

> > I don't envision myself caring about position statements, but if
> > Jeff does, then... good for him.
> 
> I would like them too. But I want them from all candidates so that I'm
> comparing apples to apples, and that every candidate has an equal
> probability of receiving votes from all the electors. 

I'm not sure what you are suggesting? I think the only request was that
everyone does send such a statement. If they don't send one... nothing
happens.

I'm not sure if you are suggesting that such statements are _required_
(those that don't send one are disqualified), or that nominees _cannot_
send such statements. Both of those sound like rule changes to me moreso
than the original requests, but perhaps I am drastically misreading you.
If this is just your expression of a voter opinion, then... okay.

-- 
Andrew Deason
adeason@sinenomine.net


From deengert@anl.gov  Thu Aug 18 19:12:13 2011
From: deengert@anl.gov (Douglas E. Engert)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 13:12:13 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <87aab6bo24.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
References: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov>	<9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk>	<F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72D3@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>	<4E4D4BA1.8000809@secure-endpoints.com>	<F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72EF@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>	<20110818134903.a314437f.adeason@sinenomine.net>	<F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E7304@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com> <87aab6bo24.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <4E4D55FD.8050102@anl.gov>

As a co-chair, I see no problem with candidates making statements.


On 8/18/2011 12:57 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> David Boyes<dboyes@sinenomine.net>  writes:
>
>> I would like them too. But I want them from all candidates so that I'm
>> comparing apples to apples, and that every candidate has an equal
>> probability of receiving votes from all the electors.
>
> You are free to reflect that desire in the way that you vote, in the same
> way that others are free to reflect their desires for statements in the
> way that they vote.  The rules, so far as I know, don't put any
> restrictions on what factors influence the votes of the people who are
> eligible to vote.
>
> I suspect we've already exerted more effort arguing about this than it
> really warranted.
>

-- 

  Douglas E. Engert  <DEEngert@anl.gov>
  Argonne National Laboratory
  9700 South Cass Avenue
  Argonne, Illinois  60439
  (630) 252-5444

From dboyes@sinenomine.net  Thu Aug 18 19:15:35 2011
From: dboyes@sinenomine.net (David Boyes)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 13:15:35 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <20110818140223.c5382fd3.adeason@sinenomine.net>
References: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov>
 <9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72D3@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <4E4D4BA1.8000809@secure-endpoints.com>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72EF@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <20110818134903.a314437f.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E7304@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <20110818140223.c5382fd3.adeason@sinenomine.net>
Message-ID: <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E7318@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>

> I'm not sure what you are suggesting?

I am suggesting that in the future, the process be changed to require a sta=
tement like the one Simon requested from all candidates. I am also suggesti=
ng that while it would be nice to have that for this election voluntarily, =
not having it should not be a valid basis for rejecting a candidate for the=
 current election, since the request occurred after the official start of t=
he voting period.=20

I don't have any problem with someone providing a statement. I do have a pr=
oblem with people stating that they will reject out of hand a candidate tha=
t does not provide one if the request was not present at the start of votin=
g.=20

> I'm not sure if you are suggesting that such statements are _required_
> (those that don't send one are disqualified), or that nominees _cannot_ s=
end
> such statements. Both of those sound like rule changes to me moreso than
> the original requests, but perhaps I am drastically misreading you.

See above. I would like to see evidence that a candidate has thought about =
the long-term process and what they intend to do as chair.=20


From mmeffie@sinenomine.net  Thu Aug 18 19:36:59 2011
From: mmeffie@sinenomine.net (Michael Meffie)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:36:59 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization co-chair
In-Reply-To: <9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk>
References: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov> <9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk>
Message-ID: <4E4D5BCB.9070604@sinenomine.net>

Simon Wilkinson wrote:

> As an elector, it would help me in casting my vote if the candidates
> would be prepared to say something on the list about their vision for
> the standardisation process, what time they are prepared to devote to
> the job, and how they think we can best move things forwards.

I agree it is a reasonable request, Simon.

If I had the opporunity to co-chair the group, firstly I would do my
best to provide to the group regular, periodic updates of the work in
progress, the status of work in progress, and public and private
reminders as needed. I would like to include timelines which should show
where we stand on documents to ensure we are moving forward in a timely
fashion.

I have participated in industry-standard forums in the past, although
not related to IETF, and understand the issues of fairness and
cooperation which is required to build a consensus.

In terms of time, I understand this position will require some time per
work week and would be able to dedicate time each week to facilitate the
standardization process.

Mike --

From gary.buhrmaster@gmail.com  Fri Aug 19 07:54:44 2011
From: gary.buhrmaster@gmail.com (Gary Buhrmaster)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 23:54:44 -0700
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: Voting for the position of AFS3-standardization co-chair
In-Reply-To: <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E7318@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
References: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov>
 <9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72D3@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <4E4D4BA1.8000809@secure-endpoints.com>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72EF@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <20110818134903.a314437f.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E7304@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <20110818140223.c5382fd3.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E7318@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
Message-ID: <CAMfXtQxU93c-Fc+t-fJN80ZiKfWMJ9zj2tKcE8hdoeMn9_eSDA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 11:15, David Boyes <dboyes@sinenomine.net> wrote:
..
> I am suggesting that in the future, the process be changed to require a statement like the one Simon requested from all candidates.

In the more formal elections I am familiar with, candidates
have the option of offering a statement or to choose to
provide none at all.  I think that is the appropriate way
forward (and the voters will make of those choices by
the candidates what they will, as it should be).

One alternative might be a (built-in) hold between
the candidates being announced and voting beginning
to allow the candidates to state their positions on list.
Another might be that the chairs ask that as part
of the acceptance of the nomination the potential
candidate is offered an opportunity to provide a
statement that the chair would include in the
formal "election has started" email.

But that would be for the next election.  This election
is already in progress.

From dboyes@sinenomine.net  Fri Aug 19 08:28:58 2011
From: dboyes@sinenomine.net (David Boyes)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 02:28:58 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: Voting for the position of AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <CAMfXtQxU93c-Fc+t-fJN80ZiKfWMJ9zj2tKcE8hdoeMn9_eSDA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov>
 <9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72D3@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <4E4D4BA1.8000809@secure-endpoints.com>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72EF@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <20110818134903.a314437f.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E7304@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <20110818140223.c5382fd3.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E7318@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <CAMfXtQxU93c-Fc+t-fJN80ZiKfWMJ9zj2tKcE8hdoeMn9_eSDA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <35BBE9DA-E253-4A01-A02A-B437E3EE6311@sinenomine.net>

> One alternative might be a (built-in) hold between
> the candidates being announced and voting beginning
> to allow the candidates to state their positions on list.
> Another might be that the chairs ask that as part
> of the acceptance of the nomination the potential
> candidate is offered an opportunity to provide a
> statement that the chair would include in the
> formal "election has started" email.

Either of these options seem reasonable for next time. I do still think tha=
t if we use them, we should officially add them to the process.=

From adeason@sinenomine.net  Fri Aug 26 23:29:32 2011
From: adeason@sinenomine.net (Andrew Deason)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 17:29:32 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] New version of the 64-bit time I-D (-03)
Message-ID: <20110826172932.c2ec883f.adeason@sinenomine.net>

draft-deason-afs3-type-time-03 has been posted and is available at

<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-deason-afs3-type-time/>

This changes the epoch of the absolute time types to the Unix epoch, and
changes the names to include '64' in them. Some discussion about
differing time granularities and pre-UTC dates has been added.

There are a lot of changes between -02 and -03, most of which are just
to accommodate the changes in epoch and type names, and other minor
stuff like that. While I appreciate feedback on anything in the
document, sections 5 (Resolution Limitations) and 6 (Times Before UTC)
are completely new, and contain more substantive new text than any other
changes. So, if you don't want to read the whole thing again, I'd urge
you to at least read those two sections.

-- 
Andrew Deason
adeason@sinenomine.net


From deengert@anl.gov  Mon Aug 29 14:24:53 2011
From: deengert@anl.gov (Douglas E. Engert)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 08:24:53 -0500
Subject: Fwd: [AFS3-std] Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
Message-ID: <4E5B9325.9020507@anl.gov>

This is a reminder, your votes must be in by the end of Thursday 9/1.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [AFS3-std] Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization co-chair
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 09:18:24 -0500
From: Douglas E. Engert <deengert@anl.gov>
To: afs3-standardization@openafs.org <afs3-standardization@openafs.org>
CC: Hartmut Reuter <reuter@rzg.mpg.de>,	"Douglas E. Engert" <deengert@anl.gov>

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wilkinson-afs3-standardisation-00.txt

defines our election procedures to elect a co-chair for a 2 year term
starting October 1. In the option of the co-chairs we have two candidates:

Jeffrey Hutzelman
Mike Meffie

Jeff was nominated by Doug Engert and seconded by Matt W. Benjamin.
Mike was nominated by Andrew Deason and seconded by Matt Benjamin.


I am revising the schedule so voting starts today, and and
on September 1.

Schedule:
   Nominations open            8/2 - 8/16
   Announcement of nominations 8/18         * revised
   Voting                      8-18 - 9/1   * revised
   Election results            9/7

Please read section 2.2.2 as to who can vote.

Send votes to Hartmut and myself as the vote takers, *NOT* to the list.
Please use the subject of this email for voting, you can
reply to it, but *NOT* to the full list.




-- 

  Douglas E. Engert  <DEEngert@anl.gov>
  Argonne National Laboratory
  9700 South Cass Avenue
  Argonne, Illinois  60439
  (630) 252-5444
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
AFS3-standardization@openafs.org
http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization


_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
AFS3-standardization@openafs.org
http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization



From deengert@anl.gov  Wed Aug 31 21:21:44 2011
From: deengert@anl.gov (Douglas E. Engert)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:21:44 -0500
Subject: Fwd: [AFS3-std] Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
Message-ID: <4E5E97D8.3060204@anl.gov>

This is a reminder, you have only one more day to vote. Votes
must be received by Thu, 01 Sep 2011 23:59:59 -0500 (CDT)

Last year 21 people voted, so far we have received only 10 votes.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [AFS3-std] Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization co-chair
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 09:18:24 -0500
From: Douglas E. Engert <deengert@anl.gov>
To: afs3-standardization@openafs.org <afs3-standardization@openafs.org>
CC: Hartmut Reuter <reuter@rzg.mpg.de>,	"Douglas E. Engert" <deengert@anl.gov>

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wilkinson-afs3-standardisation-00.txt

defines our election procedures to elect a co-chair for a 2 year term
starting October 1. In the option of the co-chairs we have two candidates:

Jeffrey Hutzelman
Mike Meffie

Jeff was nominated by Doug Engert and seconded by Matt W. Benjamin.
Mike was nominated by Andrew Deason and seconded by Matt Benjamin.


I am revising the schedule so voting starts today, and and
on September 1.

Schedule:
   Nominations open            8/2 - 8/16
   Announcement of nominations 8/18         * revised
   Voting                      8-18 - 9/1   * revised
   Election results            9/7

Please read section 2.2.2 as to who can vote.

Send votes to Hartmut and myself as the vote takers, *NOT* to the list.
Please use the subject of this email for voting, you can
reply to it, but *NOT* to the full list.




-- 

  Douglas E. Engert  <DEEngert@anl.gov>
  Argonne National Laboratory
  9700 South Cass Avenue
  Argonne, Illinois  60439
  (630) 252-5444
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
AFS3-standardization@openafs.org
http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization


_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
AFS3-standardization@openafs.org
http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization


_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
AFS3-standardization@openafs.org
http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization



From tkeiser@sinenomine.net  Mon Aug  1 00:53:40 2011
From: tkeiser@sinenomine.net (Tom Keiser)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2011 19:53:40 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: XDR extensible union type
In-Reply-To: <5D0108C15137EC449A517DD8454DE71503041C69F4@34093-MBX-C15.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
References: <AcxG4ZFuaYCU/LENS+ysCykoj1AgzgAXdVgL>
 <5D0108C15137EC449A517DD8454DE71503041C69F4@34093-MBX-C15.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
Message-ID: <CAK3rXuCoLKEd+bScNF6uCVVa-FAirHQH_rR_hcyd840mRnhG-g@mail.gmail.com>

--0015174483e85c0ec004a9663966
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I pushed draft-keiser-afs3-xdr-union-03 (incorporating Derrick's grammatical
corrections) to the IETF last week.  Comments are hereby solicited.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-keiser-afs3-xdr-union-03

Cheers,

-Tom
On Jul 20, 2011 8:46 PM, "Tom Keiser" <tkeiser@sinenomine.net> wrote:
> Hi Derrick,
>
> Thanks very much for the review; I'll incorporate those edits.
>
> I'd like to publish -03 on Tuesday. If any interested party can find time
to send comments by Monday, it would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Tom
>
> Sent from my phone; please excuse any typographic or grammatical errors.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Derrick Brashear [shadow@gmail.com]
> Received: Wednesday, 20 Jul 2011, 9:33am
> To: Tom Keiser [tkeiser@sinenomine.net]
> Subject: Re: [AFS3-std] Re: XDR extensible union type
>
> i lie
>
> "1. Lookup the discriminant"
>
> I believe that should be, as an operation, "look up"
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Derrick Brashear <shadow@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> 6. AFS Assign Numbers Registrar Considerations
>>
>> "Assigned"
>>
>> the actual content is fine and i see no issues.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Tom Keiser <tkeiser@sinenomine.net>
wrote:
>>> On Jun 20, 2011 2:41 PM, "Tom Keiser" <tkeiser@sinenomine.net> wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I pushed a new revision of draft-keiser-afs3-xdr-union:
>>>>
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-keiser-afs3-xdr-union-02
>>>>
>>>> This revision incorporates the following two changes:
>>>>
>>>> * modify section on error handling (3.4.1) to make length mismatches a
>>>> fatal error
>>>> * add a "use case" section (1.1) to discuss trade-offs associated with
>>>> using this type
>>>>
>>>> Any comments are welcome.
>>>>
>>>> -Tom
>>>
>>> This is a second call for review of draft-keiser-afs3-xdr-union-02; all
>>> comments are welcome.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> -Tom
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Derrick
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Derrick

--0015174483e85c0ec004a9663966
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p>I pushed draft-keiser-afs3-xdr-union-03 (incorporating Derrick&#39;s gra=
mmatical corrections) to the IETF last week.=A0 Comments are hereby solicit=
ed.</p>
<p><a href=3D"http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-keiser-afs3-xdr-union-03">ht=
tp://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-keiser-afs3-xdr-union-03</a></p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
<p>-Tom</p>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Jul 20, 2011 8:46 PM, &quot;Tom Keiser&quot; =
&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:tkeiser@sinenomine.net">tkeiser@sinenomine.net</a>&gt=
; wrote:<br type=3D"attribution">&gt; Hi Derrick,<br>&gt; <br>&gt; Thanks v=
ery much for the review; I&#39;ll incorporate those edits.<br>
&gt; <br>&gt; I&#39;d like to publish -03 on Tuesday. If any interested par=
ty can find time to send comments by Monday, it would be greatly appreciate=
d.<br>&gt; <br>&gt; Cheers,<br>&gt; <br>&gt; -Tom<br>&gt; <br>&gt; Sent fro=
m my phone; please excuse any typographic or grammatical errors.<br>
&gt; <br>&gt; -----Original Message-----<br>&gt; From: Derrick Brashear [<a=
 href=3D"mailto:shadow@gmail.com">shadow@gmail.com</a>]<br>&gt; Received: W=
ednesday, 20 Jul 2011, 9:33am<br>&gt; To: Tom Keiser [<a href=3D"mailto:tke=
iser@sinenomine.net">tkeiser@sinenomine.net</a>]<br>
&gt; Subject: Re: [AFS3-std] Re: XDR extensible union type<br>&gt; <br>&gt;=
 i lie<br>&gt; <br>&gt; &quot;1.  Lookup the discriminant&quot;<br>&gt; <br=
>&gt; I believe that should be, as an operation, &quot;look up&quot;<br>
&gt; <br>&gt; <br>&gt; On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Derrick Brashear &l=
t;<a href=3D"mailto:shadow@gmail.com">shadow@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>&g=
t;&gt; 6.  AFS Assign Numbers Registrar Considerations<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&=
gt; &quot;Assigned&quot;<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt; the actual content is fine and i see no issues.<br>&gt=
;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt; On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Tom Keiser &lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:tkeiser@sinenomine.net">tkeiser@sinenomine.net</a>&gt; wrote:<br=
>
&gt;&gt;&gt; On Jun 20, 2011 2:41 PM, &quot;Tom Keiser&quot; &lt;<a href=3D=
"mailto:tkeiser@sinenomine.net">tkeiser@sinenomine.net</a>&gt; wrote:<br>&g=
t;&gt;&gt;&gt; Hi all,<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; I pushed a n=
ew revision of draft-keiser-afs3-xdr-union:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"http://tools.ietf.org/html/=
draft-keiser-afs3-xdr-union-02">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-keiser-afs=
3-xdr-union-02</a><br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; This revision in=
corporates the following two changes:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; * modify section on error handling (3.=
4.1) to make length mismatches a<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; fatal error<br>&gt;&gt=
;&gt;&gt; * add a &quot;use case&quot; section (1.1) to discuss trade-offs =
associated with<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; using this type<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; An=
y comments are welcome.<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; -Tom<br>&gt=
;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt; This is a second call for review of  draft-keiser=
-afs3-xdr-union-02; all<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; comments are welcome.<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt; Cheers,<=
br>&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt; -Tom<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;<br=
>&gt;&gt; --<br>&gt;&gt; Derrick<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt; <br>&gt; <br>&gt; <br>
&gt; --<br>&gt; Derrick<br></div>

--0015174483e85c0ec004a9663966--

From simon@sxw.org.uk  Mon Aug  1 18:07:35 2011
From: simon@sxw.org.uk (Simon Wilkinson)
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 18:07:35 +0100
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org> <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu> <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk> <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net> <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>

Given how much of what we want to do depends on defining a new time type, it=
 would be good to keep up the momentum with this draft.

Would those with problems with the current draft be prepared to suggest new w=
ording for:

a) the epoch value
b) the granularity

that we could use as a basis for further discussion? It would also be wonder=
ful if everyone with an interest in this topic could participate in that dis=
cussion, rather than waiting for another last call to raise objections.

Thanks,

Simon=

From rra@stanford.edu  Mon Aug  1 18:13:57 2011
From: rra@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 10:13:57 -0700
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk> (Simon
 Wilkinson's message of "Mon, 1 Aug 2011 18:07:35 +0100")
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>
Message-ID: <87wrex836y.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>

Simon Wilkinson <simon@sxw.org.uk> writes:

> Would those with problems with the current draft be prepared to suggest
> new wording for:

> a) the epoch value
> b) the granularity

> that we could use as a basis for further discussion? It would also be
> wonderful if everyone with an interest in this topic could participate
> in that discussion, rather than waiting for another last call to raise
> objections.

As nice as it would be to be able to represent old timestamps in the file
system, we've never been able to before (at least consistently), and I
think the simplicity benefits for compatibility with current code bases of
sticking with the POSIX epoch are substantial.

I don't have an opinion on the granularity.  For me, the benefits of
matching NFS and the POSIX timestamp granularity is fairly evenly balanced
against the drawbacks of increasing the size of all of our protocol
packets.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

From matt@linuxbox.com  Mon Aug  1 18:21:47 2011
From: matt@linuxbox.com (Matt W. Benjamin)
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 13:21:47 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on
 draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <87wrex836y.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <159746358.62.1312219307195.JavaMail.root@thunderbeast.private.linuxbox.com>

Hi,

a) with Russ
b) Intuitively I would have voted and would vote for the more NFS, POSIX flavor of timestamp granularity.  In prior discussion, that was not the consensus.

Matt

----- "Russ Allbery" <rra@stanford.edu> wrote:

> Simon Wilkinson <simon@sxw.org.uk> writes:
> 
> > Would those with problems with the current draft be prepared to
> suggest
> > new wording for:
> 
> > a) the epoch value
> > b) the granularity

> 
> As nice as it would be to be able to represent old timestamps in the
> file
> system, we've never been able to before (at least consistently), and
> I
> think the simplicity benefits for compatibility with current code
> bases of
> sticking with the POSIX epoch are substantial.
> 
> I don't have an opinion on the granularity.  For me, the benefits of
> matching NFS and the POSIX timestamp granularity is fairly evenly
> balanced
> against the drawbacks of increasing the size of all of our protocol
> packets.
>

-- 

Matt Benjamin

The Linux Box
206 South Fifth Ave. Suite 150
Ann Arbor, MI  48104

http://linuxbox.com

tel. 734-761-4689
fax. 734-769-8938
cel. 734-216-5309

From adeason@sinenomine.net  Mon Aug  1 18:28:10 2011
From: adeason@sinenomine.net (Andrew Deason)
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 12:28:10 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>
Message-ID: <20110801122810.81b1889c.adeason@sinenomine.net>

On Mon, 1 Aug 2011 18:07:35 +0100
Simon Wilkinson <simon@sxw.org.uk> wrote:

> Given how much of what we want to do depends on defining a new time
> type, it would be good to keep up the momentum with this draft.
> 
> Would those with problems with the current draft be prepared to
> suggest new wording for:
> 
> a) the epoch value

I don't think I've heard any significant arguments for keeping the epoch
as it exists in the current draft. And since there are issues with the
current epoch value that Russ has detailed, it makes sense to me to
change it to the posix epoch. I was going to change it unless I heard
someone object; I'll propose some new text soon based on Russ'
suggestions unless someone else wants to.

> b) the granularity

This one I still have no idea on. I see reasons for both sides.

> that we could use as a basis for further discussion? It would also be
> wonderful if everyone with an interest in this topic could participate
> in that discussion, rather than waiting for another last call to raise
> objections.

Most people involved have a lot of deadlines to work with and balance.
Right now, the only "deadline" we are given for standards discussion is
the last call. If you want to ensure discussion before that point, give
another deadline.

-- 
Andrew Deason
adeason@sinenomine.net


From shadow@gmail.com  Mon Aug  1 18:32:46 2011
From: shadow@gmail.com (Derrick Brashear)
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 13:32:46 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <20110801122810.81b1889c.adeason@sinenomine.net>
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>
 <20110801122810.81b1889c.adeason@sinenomine.net>
Message-ID: <CAMHoRJg1C2sVXyETEyaKwP_T0GSLDLuO9_nB_n2YMEz6qWG55g@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> wrote:

>> b) the granularity
>
> This one I still have no idea on. I see reasons for both sides.

So is there a reason an extended union with the various stamp
granularities would be a nonstarter? In particular I'd suggest the
draft strongly discourage
sending a larger timestamp than actual information supports (e.g.
don't use bits to send precision you don't have, rather than
trailing-zero-padding a
larger than needed number)

-- 
Derrick

From jaltman@secure-endpoints.com  Mon Aug  1 18:39:35 2011
From: jaltman@secure-endpoints.com (Jeffrey Altman)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 13:39:35 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <87wrex836y.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>	<4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>	<D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>	<87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>	<87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk> <87wrex836y.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <4E36E4D7.9010308@secure-endpoints.com>

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig4A27C580FE23C3E7E55C905E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 8/1/2011 1:13 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> As nice as it would be to be able to represent old timestamps in the fi=
le
> system, we've never been able to before (at least consistently), and I
> think the simplicity benefits for compatibility with current code bases=
 of
> sticking with the POSIX epoch are substantial.
>
> I don't have an opinion on the granularity.  For me, the benefits of
> matching NFS and the POSIX timestamp granularity is fairly evenly balan=
ced
> against the drawbacks of increasing the size of all of our protocol
> packets.

I have a strong desire to ensure that everything that can be represented
in an NTFS file system can be represented in AFS.  I don't care if the
epoch is the same or if the granularity is better than 100ns or not.

I am concerned about the size of status structures given how frequently
they are sent and because the size of the status structure determines
how many FIDs can be specified in a single Bulk Status request.

It would be nice if we could have some form of compressed time
representation that only sent the required number of bits necessary to
represent the required granularity.

Jeffrey Altman


--------------enig4A27C580FE23C3E7E55C905E
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJONuTdAAoJENxm1CNJffh4/1EH/2edEyuNmABtPOma63yPvItC
dlmgGYHO5YnJyW7dsoPyE4+wtorPCPFpVIriwIyke7eXhBjDHYod0sE+PjMa00US
elGszsC+O8YFReJQkvCUo6K82sTNmjIDI95tFtTWPuPM4NDniN7HW2IhjqbIZOX1
pArwMylZD2BUk+GjPbpElgWqQoFhB96pHgmS4UK94brY9wGfjo/geMWgN/kLm5OP
pGtiAhj01mDrr5qKYe8l0fQm9EVd2BTB2TI7flshB5foFFx+86LadxQdyhUciDdg
W6NHvqbEbDPoHvOqsrHg4bvxYQnsXBkDGsnC2goeZ3B1pMKt466GHoUbBtEAXXU=
=EWEN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig4A27C580FE23C3E7E55C905E--


From rra@stanford.edu  Mon Aug  1 18:50:51 2011
From: rra@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 10:50:51 -0700
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <4E36E4D7.9010308@secure-endpoints.com> (Jeffrey Altman's message
 of "Mon, 01 Aug 2011 13:39:35 -0400")
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>
 <87wrex836y.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <4E36E4D7.9010308@secure-endpoints.com>
Message-ID: <87fwll81hg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>

Jeffrey Altman <jaltman@secure-endpoints.com> writes:

> I have a strong desire to ensure that everything that can be represented
> in an NTFS file system can be represented in AFS.

Does that include timestamps prior to 1970, just to check?

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

From adeason@sinenomine.net  Mon Aug  1 18:53:44 2011
From: adeason@sinenomine.net (Andrew Deason)
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 12:53:44 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>
 <20110801122810.81b1889c.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <CAMHoRJg1C2sVXyETEyaKwP_T0GSLDLuO9_nB_n2YMEz6qWG55g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20110801125344.e9e45873.adeason@sinenomine.net>

On Mon, 1 Aug 2011 13:32:46 -0400
Derrick Brashear <shadow@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> wrote:
> 
> >> b) the granularity
> >
> > This one I still have no idea on. I see reasons for both sides.
> 
> So is there a reason an extended union with the various stamp
> granularities would be a nonstarter? In particular I'd suggest the
> draft strongly discourage
> sending a larger timestamp than actual information supports (e.g.
> don't use bits to send precision you don't have, rather than
> trailing-zero-padding a
> larger than needed number)

Well, the objection to just having 64-bit seconds and 32-bit nanoseconds
is "space", and a union tag is an extra 32 bits... If we had a "100 NS
granularity" tag, then we'd have 100-ns granularity in 96 bits, whereas
now we could have 1-ns granularity in 96 bits. Unless there's some other
scheme you're thinking of that somehow makes this more efficient?

I had some kind of variable-length scheme that encoded the granularity
in the 'unused' bits of the value for coarser granularities, but I'm
pretty sure that only saved space for the *TimeRes types, and doesn't
really help for 'plain' times.

-- 
Andrew Deason
adeason@sinenomine.net


From jaltman@secure-endpoints.com  Mon Aug  1 19:01:25 2011
From: jaltman@secure-endpoints.com (Jeffrey Altman)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 14:01:25 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <87fwll81hg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>	<4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>	<D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>	<87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>	<87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>	<87wrex836y.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<4E36E4D7.9010308@secure-endpoints.com> <87fwll81hg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <4E36E9F5.9000502@secure-endpoints.com>

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig23F50A5B2A28DAF581F3533F
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 8/1/2011 1:50 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Jeffrey Altman <jaltman@secure-endpoints.com> writes:
>=20
>> I have a strong desire to ensure that everything that can be represent=
ed
>> in an NTFS file system can be represented in AFS.
>=20
> Does that include timestamps prior to 1970, just to check?
>=20

Yes.



--------------enig23F50A5B2A28DAF581F3533F
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJONun2AAoJENxm1CNJffh4mrIIAIEPpQF6ZniJKtOR3Go0RhOo
UJihNKxv52kCD9Jsulu+C19n5L0QkqfFqXUSJNtOqU0a7M0rypzhiyOmpdKiboiB
st2NhCi50BPkbVq68+GbhzHIZLNEs3aMnV8Xhhl76e9s+rmlXy7G/bY1pMxIWYAn
zY58jFCcgeeTHf06qcGsop1VwyQX4Vy/POnbs5+YybtOxTGIvi/awa2YFaqLZeyz
pUZe8TgpYR3XODPoc6ykc/SFoD4c+PpToHEXQFHZVWbpDpMIU9M4WmbZESRGObxX
5bqOusZgx7THzk5r5nTc8BWWmp5tnPvALz+MOlHTRvFje99rwQz/Cl+luWDY/ak=
=Tflf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig23F50A5B2A28DAF581F3533F--


From rra@stanford.edu  Mon Aug  1 19:13:50 2011
From: rra@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 11:13:50 -0700
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <4E36E9F5.9000502@secure-endpoints.com> (Jeffrey Altman's message
 of "Mon, 01 Aug 2011 14:01:25 -0400")
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>
 <87wrex836y.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <4E36E4D7.9010308@secure-endpoints.com>
 <87fwll81hg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <4E36E9F5.9000502@secure-endpoints.com>
Message-ID: <871ux580f5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>

Jeffrey Altman <jaltman@secure-endpoints.com> writes:
> On 8/1/2011 1:50 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Jeffrey Altman <jaltman@secure-endpoints.com> writes:

>>> I have a strong desire to ensure that everything that can be represented
>>> in an NTFS file system can be represented in AFS.

>> Does that include timestamps prior to 1970, just to check?

> Yes.

Okay, so you *do* care about what epoch is used, unless we use a time
definition that allows for negative offsets from the epoch.

Does Microsoft have documentation for how the Windows epoch deals with
Gregorian calendar conversions and leap seconds?

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

From shadow@gmail.com  Mon Aug  1 19:19:11 2011
From: shadow@gmail.com (Derrick Brashear)
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 14:19:11 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <20110801125344.e9e45873.adeason@sinenomine.net>
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>
 <20110801122810.81b1889c.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <CAMHoRJg1C2sVXyETEyaKwP_T0GSLDLuO9_nB_n2YMEz6qWG55g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110801125344.e9e45873.adeason@sinenomine.net>
Message-ID: <CAMHoRJj9qaQfY7hQfCCRVC7NWe1mt4DUJ58_WspqOTV1JLi+8Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Aug 2011 13:32:46 -0400
> Derrick Brashear <shadow@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> b) the granularity
>> >
>> > This one I still have no idea on. I see reasons for both sides.
>>
>> So is there a reason an extended union with the various stamp
>> granularities would be a nonstarter? In particular I'd suggest the
>> draft strongly discourage
>> sending a larger timestamp than actual information supports (e.g.
>> don't use bits to send precision you don't have, rather than
>> trailing-zero-padding a
>> larger than needed number)
>
> Well, the objection to just having 64-bit seconds and 32-bit nanoseconds
> is "space", and a union tag is an extra 32 bits... If we had a "100 NS
> granularity" tag, then we'd have 100-ns granularity in 96 bits, whereas
> now we could have 1-ns granularity in 96 bits. Unless there's some other
> scheme you're thinking of that somehow makes this more efficient?

for the worst case, it's worse. for the best case, it's better. but i
suppose it may not be worth it
given that the worst case will become more prevalent over time.

> I had some kind of variable-length scheme that encoded the granularity
> in the 'unused' bits of the value for coarser granularities, but I'm
> pretty sure that only saved space for the *TimeRes types, and doesn't
> really help for 'plain' times.

and those are going to be a majority, i think.


-- 
Derrick

From tkeiser@sinenomine.net  Mon Aug  1 21:16:44 2011
From: tkeiser@sinenomine.net (Tom Keiser)
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 16:16:44 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <20110801125344.e9e45873.adeason@sinenomine.net>
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>
 <20110801122810.81b1889c.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <CAMHoRJg1C2sVXyETEyaKwP_T0GSLDLuO9_nB_n2YMEz6qWG55g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110801125344.e9e45873.adeason@sinenomine.net>
Message-ID: <CAK3rXuCqN_GwuCupEM4O=A=Svh6itj-fGLM=WNN029ntiFvb1w@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Aug 2011 13:32:46 -0400
> Derrick Brashear <shadow@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> b) the granularity
>> >
>> > This one I still have no idea on. I see reasons for both sides.
>>
>> So is there a reason an extended union with the various stamp
>> granularities would be a nonstarter? In particular I'd suggest the
>> draft strongly discourage
>> sending a larger timestamp than actual information supports (e.g.
>> don't use bits to send precision you don't have, rather than
>> trailing-zero-padding a
>> larger than needed number)
>
> Well, the objection to just having 64-bit seconds and 32-bit nanoseconds
> is "space", and a union tag is an extra 32 bits... If we had a "100 NS
> granularity" tag, then we'd have 100-ns granularity in 96 bits, whereas
> now we could have 1-ns granularity in 96 bits. Unless there's some other
> scheme you're thinking of that somehow makes this more efficient?
>

This is why in Pittsburgh we proposed that overarching structures
(e.g., AFSFetchStatus, and AFSStoreStatus) should be wrapped in
ext-union, while proscribing the use of union/ext-union for individual
members of those structures.  As I suggested last Friday, we could
define two different AFSFetchStatus/AFSStoreStatus implied legs for
now: one with 64-bit time, and a second with 96-bit time (perhaps, we
would also want to define a third leg with 32-bit time--given that
we're likely to have implementations of the protocol long before
server backing stores can handle the increased resolution)...

-Tom

From deengert@anl.gov  Mon Aug  1 21:47:47 2011
From: deengert@anl.gov (Douglas E. Engert)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 15:47:47 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Election Procedure for AFS-3 Working Group Chairs
Message-ID: <4E3710F3.3000603@anl.gov>

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wilkinson-afs3-standardisation-00.txt

Says its time for an election, typically with nominations starting
August 1, for 14 days, voting for 14 days, and 7 days to count with
the new chair starting on October 1.

It is my position that is up for election, as I have the one year
term. Hartmut Reuter is the other co-chair with the 2 year term.

Please read section 2.2.2 as to who can be nominated, and who can vote.

(We will need a list of eligible voters, from the mailman-owner
for our list. Once we get that we can start the nomination process,
and keep within the guidelines and have a chair by October 1.)

-- 

  Douglas E. Engert  <DEEngert@anl.gov>
  Argonne National Laboratory
  9700 South Cass Avenue
  Argonne, Illinois  60439
  (630) 252-5444

From jaltman@secure-endpoints.com  Mon Aug  1 22:05:36 2011
From: jaltman@secure-endpoints.com (Jeffrey Altman)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 17:05:36 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <871ux580f5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>	<4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>	<D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>	<87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>	<87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>	<87wrex836y.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<4E36E4D7.9010308@secure-endpoints.com>	<87fwll81hg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<4E36E9F5.9000502@secure-endpoints.com> <871ux580f5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <4E371520.2050905@secure-endpoints.com>

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enigF4A4B8C5B5CC41684FB59F42
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 8/1/2011 2:13 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Okay, so you *do* care about what epoch is used, unless we use a time
> definition that allows for negative offsets from the epoch.

I am fine with negative offsets from epoch if that is what people want.

> Does Microsoft have documentation for how the Windows epoch deals with
> Gregorian calendar conversions and leap seconds?

There isn't anything that pops out at me from Google.

If you can provide me a list of boundary times to check I can construct
a test application that uses SYSTEMTIME to FILETIME conversions to test
the results of various time arithmetic operations.

typedef struct _SYSTEMTIME {
  WORD wYear;
  WORD wMonth;
  WORD wDayOfWeek;
  WORD wDay;
  WORD wHour;
  WORD wMinute;
  WORD wSecond;
  WORD wMilliseconds;
} SYSTEMTIME, *PSYSTEMTIME;



--------------enigF4A4B8C5B5CC41684FB59F42
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJONxUiAAoJENxm1CNJffh4mu4H/A7+rbmqi6FER4MuMi1/q+SY
lFwytYN63cqi9l0wcFnOohPlGYHF3NoKG8U71oZiTqLYdjG5mfi/BNQAU4Y+7aQ3
117nRk16TBN3UfdJo8dn/mapBOAlP9Cw9RF0Ac8z9f7416qZ/eHASAsyNiceOvwJ
FsiQT9P03z2F+5zEb5/LUn6OGPNVHCB1HVv6TfeUM952Ksd/cmNBgozKlf+rBCDa
iiunFEF/2sgHLlaT1iQgZ3TqgfulEJCRwnOSEaD6D+lVTZpCw7AT4UELa/JCNTJj
gQ++cQnQ8PFGchd0t0IJhaoqFaAQqT+UZNMNbOvMTo9RkowPHlGqLJy5AbRF91M=
=B2Sk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enigF4A4B8C5B5CC41684FB59F42--


From shadow@gmail.com  Mon Aug  1 22:07:45 2011
From: shadow@gmail.com (Derrick Brashear)
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 17:07:45 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <CAK3rXuCqN_GwuCupEM4O=A=Svh6itj-fGLM=WNN029ntiFvb1w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>
 <20110801122810.81b1889c.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <CAMHoRJg1C2sVXyETEyaKwP_T0GSLDLuO9_nB_n2YMEz6qWG55g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110801125344.e9e45873.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <CAK3rXuCqN_GwuCupEM4O=A=Svh6itj-fGLM=WNN029ntiFvb1w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMHoRJi-++RwV7KMvy+6fCxzUdvW7GS7LQXBappDoNw2-wNmzg@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Tom Keiser <tkeiser@sinenomine.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> wr=
ote:
>> On Mon, 1 Aug 2011 13:32:46 -0400
>> Derrick Brashear <shadow@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> =
wrote:
>>>
>>> >> b) the granularity
>>> >
>>> > This one I still have no idea on. I see reasons for both sides.
>>>
>>> So is there a reason an extended union with the various stamp
>>> granularities would be a nonstarter? In particular I'd suggest the
>>> draft strongly discourage
>>> sending a larger timestamp than actual information supports (e.g.
>>> don't use bits to send precision you don't have, rather than
>>> trailing-zero-padding a
>>> larger than needed number)
>>
>> Well, the objection to just having 64-bit seconds and 32-bit nanoseconds
>> is "space", and a union tag is an extra 32 bits... If we had a "100 NS
>> granularity" tag, then we'd have 100-ns granularity in 96 bits, whereas
>> now we could have 1-ns granularity in 96 bits. Unless there's some other
>> scheme you're thinking of that somehow makes this more efficient?
>>
>
> This is why in Pittsburgh we proposed that overarching structures
> (e.g., AFSFetchStatus, and AFSStoreStatus) should be wrapped in
> ext-union, while proscribing the use of union/ext-union for individual
> members of those structures. =A0As I suggested last Friday, we could
> define two different AFSFetchStatus/AFSStoreStatus implied legs for
> now: one with 64-bit time, and a second with 96-bit time (perhaps, we
> would also want to define a third leg with 32-bit time--given that
> we're likely to have implementations of the protocol long before
> server backing stores can handle the increased resolution)...

and this approach would be fine for this, at least for a long time in
the interim.

From rra@stanford.edu  Mon Aug  1 22:16:18 2011
From: rra@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 14:16:18 -0700
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <4E371520.2050905@secure-endpoints.com> (Jeffrey Altman's message
 of "Mon, 01 Aug 2011 17:05:36 -0400")
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>
 <87wrex836y.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <4E36E4D7.9010308@secure-endpoints.com>
 <87fwll81hg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <4E36E9F5.9000502@secure-endpoints.com>
 <871ux580f5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <4E371520.2050905@secure-endpoints.com>
Message-ID: <87livc6del.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>

Jeffrey Altman <jaltman@secure-endpoints.com> writes:

> If you can provide me a list of boundary times to check I can construct
> a test application that uses SYSTEMTIME to FILETIME conversions to test
> the results of various time arithmetic operations.

> typedef struct _SYSTEMTIME {
>   WORD wYear;
>   WORD wMonth;
>   WORD wDayOfWeek;
>   WORD wDay;
>   WORD wHour;
>   WORD wMinute;
>   WORD wSecond;
>   WORD wMilliseconds;
> } SYSTEMTIME, *PSYSTEMTIME;

Usually the interesting ones for Gregorian conversion of software written
in the US are around the date of UK transition from Julian to Gregorian in
September of 1752:

    September 1752
 Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
        1  2 14 15 16
 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

(gcal is one of the few programs I know that attempts to cope with this.)

My guess is that Windows is using a backwards-projection of UTC without
leap seconds and not attempting to worry about dates that theoretically
should be in Julian, so you'll get an offset of 10 or 11 days relative to
the actual historical time when converting from a timestamp to calendar
time.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

From jaltman@secure-endpoints.com  Mon Aug  1 22:20:06 2011
From: jaltman@secure-endpoints.com (Jeffrey Altman)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 17:20:06 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <87livc6del.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>	<4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>	<D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>	<87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>	<87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>	<87wrex836y.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<4E36E4D7.9010308@secure-endpoints.com>	<87fwll81hg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<4E36E9F5.9000502@secure-endpoints.com>	<871ux580f5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<4E371520.2050905@secure-endpoints.com> <87livc6del.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <4E371886.8010307@secure-endpoints.com>

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig2647EB98B812449AC7E31696
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 8/1/2011 5:16 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Jeffrey Altman <jaltman@secure-endpoints.com> writes:
>=20
>> If you can provide me a list of boundary times to check I can construc=
t
>> a test application that uses SYSTEMTIME to FILETIME conversions to tes=
t
>> the results of various time arithmetic operations.
>=20
>> typedef struct _SYSTEMTIME {
>>   WORD wYear;
>>   WORD wMonth;
>>   WORD wDayOfWeek;
>>   WORD wDay;
>>   WORD wHour;
>>   WORD wMinute;
>>   WORD wSecond;
>>   WORD wMilliseconds;
>> } SYSTEMTIME, *PSYSTEMTIME;
>=20
> Usually the interesting ones for Gregorian conversion of software writt=
en
> in the US are around the date of UK transition from Julian to Gregorian=
 in
> September of 1752:
>=20
>     September 1752
>  Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
>         1  2 14 15 16
>  17 18 19 20 21 22 23
>  24 25 26 27 28 29 30
>=20
> (gcal is one of the few programs I know that attempts to cope with this=
=2E)
>=20
> My guess is that Windows is using a backwards-projection of UTC without=

> leap seconds and not attempting to worry about dates that theoretically=

> should be in Julian, so you'll get an offset of 10 or 11 days relative =
to
> the actual historical time when converting from a timestamp to calendar=

> time.
>=20

Provide times for a few known leap seconds and I can test those as well.



--------------enig2647EB98B812449AC7E31696
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJONxiIAAoJENxm1CNJffh49/AH/1MZZLyAQ9mIiabhFyZnFHuv
FFjEX67+JHztWs7JmIZvz6vEFtrPggpRl2CFXC9kf5dT3eNckXMI3kMEaQRz+YUN
cUats8XTrifl8BABP1u9n6xK8DWd3v+YBgrMumCn5ckVUzi+4VaQIrFqBqCfsig2
i2KN9IXVDtyHE5i0pcOxo6lmKYlgN1aMWh8gOSPXep/iQ13YvTWXBqrGxiGjzTLt
rfz9AaySkkuVKbVGtRw/WIJn+P1J3MpfPnWWpEVHOfgFJp+1Gv0n5ILUYCpxxlV/
0AOalh7nl+T/bQDR9oAfDL1kxwRCUCuO1mZbD9XLv+mdcbZ7/muv4PLLkhF85qw=
=o4oS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig2647EB98B812449AC7E31696--


From rra@stanford.edu  Mon Aug  1 22:30:35 2011
From: rra@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 14:30:35 -0700
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <4E371886.8010307@secure-endpoints.com> (Jeffrey Altman's message
 of "Mon, 01 Aug 2011 17:20:06 -0400")
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>
 <87wrex836y.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <4E36E4D7.9010308@secure-endpoints.com>
 <87fwll81hg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <4E36E9F5.9000502@secure-endpoints.com>
 <871ux580f5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <4E371520.2050905@secure-endpoints.com>
 <87livc6del.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <4E371886.8010307@secure-endpoints.com>
Message-ID: <87bow86cqs.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>

Jeffrey Altman <jaltman@secure-endpoints.com> writes:

> Provide times for a few known leap seconds and I can test those as well.

Leap seconds are always added as 23:60 on June 30th or December 31st.
There's a table at:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second

of all the leap seconds that have been added historically.  So:

    1972-06-30 23:59:59
    1972-06-30 23:59:60
    1972-07-01 00:00:00

for example.  One of the interesting questions is whether conversion of
the first and last calendar times above are, when represented as
timestamps, one second apart or two seconds apart.

Note that, in POSIX, they're one second apart, because POSIX time contains
no leap seconds by definition (which means that it's not really possible
to accurately represent those dates).

On UNIX systems, using mktime on those dates will generally convert as
follows:

    1972-06-30 23:59:59         78821999
    1972-06-30 23:59:60         78822000
    1972-07-01 00:00:00         78822000

There's not really a "right" answer here; we just need to say what the
answer is.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

From jhutz@cmu.edu  Tue Aug  2 00:17:16 2011
From: jhutz@cmu.edu (Jeffrey Hutzelman)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 19:17:16 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: Election Procedure for AFS-3 Working Group Chairs
In-Reply-To: <4E3710F3.3000603@anl.gov>
References: <4E3710F3.3000603@anl.gov>
Message-ID: <1312240636.3168.25.camel@destiny.pc.cs.cmu.edu>

On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 15:47 -0500, Douglas E. Engert wrote:
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wilkinson-afs3-standardisation-00.txt
> 
> Says its time for an election, typically with nominations starting
> August 1, for 14 days, voting for 14 days, and 7 days to count with
> the new chair starting on October 1.
> 
> It is my position that is up for election, as I have the one year
> term. Hartmut Reuter is the other co-chair with the 2 year term.
> 
> Please read section 2.2.2 as to who can be nominated, and who can vote.
> 
> (We will need a list of eligible voters, from the mailman-owner
> for our list. Once we get that we can start the nomination process,
> and keep within the guidelines and have a chair by October 1.)

According to section 2.2.2, the list of eligible voters consists of
anyone who has posted or was subscribed during the period from June 1 to
July 1.  It's fairly easy to construct a list of who has posted by
consulting the list archives, which are publicly available at
https://lists.openafs.org/pipermail/afs3-standardization/

The subscriber list is not public; however, any subscriber can obtain a
copy by filling in his username and password near the bottom of the page
at https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization and
selecting "Visit Subscriber List".  Of course, that's as of today.  To
build a voter list, you also need to know that there have been no new
subscribers and no one has unsubscribed since April 25, before the start
of the eligibility period.

-- Jeff


From deengert@anl.gov  Tue Aug  2 17:26:34 2011
From: deengert@anl.gov (Douglas E. Engert)
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 11:26:34 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Call for nomination for the position of  AFS3-standardization co-chair
Message-ID: <4E38253A.6000001@anl.gov>

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wilkinson-afs3-standardisation-00.txt

defines our election procedures to elect a co-chair. It is my position
that is up for election, as I have the one year term. Hartmut Reuter
is the other co-chair with the 2 year term, due to expire next year.

Schedule:
   Nominations open            8/2 - 8/16
   Announcement of nominations 8/17
   Voting                      8-17 - 8/31
   Election results            9/7

Please read section 2.2.2 as to who can be nominated, and who can vote.

Send nominations to Hartmut and myself as the vote takers, and we can
contact the potential nominees to make sure they are willing to serve.

As Jeff points out:
 > The subscriber list is not public; however, any subscriber can obtain a
 > copy by filling in his username and password near the bottom of the page
 > at https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization and
 > selecting "Visit Subscriber List".  Of course, that's as of today.  To
 > build a voter list, you also need to know that there have been no new
 > subscribers and no one has unsubscribed since April 25, before the start
 > of the eligibility period.

(You can also get your password sent to you with the "Edit Options")

-- 

  Douglas E. Engert  <DEEngert@anl.gov>
  Argonne National Laboratory
  9700 South Cass Avenue
  Argonne, Illinois  60439
  (630) 252-5444

From deengert@anl.gov  Fri Aug  5 20:32:15 2011
From: deengert@anl.gov (Douglas E. Engert)
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 14:32:15 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Call for nomination for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <4E38253A.6000001@anl.gov>
References: <4E38253A.6000001@anl.gov>
Message-ID: <4E3C453F.5060805@anl.gov>

I am not running for re-election and so far we have receive only one
other nomination. See the schedule below.

On 8/2/2011 11:26 AM, Douglas E. Engert wrote:
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wilkinson-afs3-standardisation-00.txt
>
> defines our election procedures to elect a co-chair. It is my position
> that is up for election, as I have the one year term. Hartmut Reuter
> is the other co-chair with the 2 year term, due to expire next year.
>
> Schedule:
> Nominations open 8/2 - 8/16
> Announcement of nominations 8/17
> Voting 8-17 - 8/31
> Election results 9/7
>
> Please read section 2.2.2 as to who can be nominated, and who can vote.
>
> Send nominations to Hartmut and myself as the vote takers, and we can
> contact the potential nominees to make sure they are willing to serve.
>
> As Jeff points out:
>  > The subscriber list is not public; however, any subscriber can obtain a
>  > copy by filling in his username and password near the bottom of the page
>  > at https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization and
>  > selecting "Visit Subscriber List". Of course, that's as of today. To
>  > build a voter list, you also need to know that there have been no new
>  > subscribers and no one has unsubscribed since April 25, before the start
>  > of the eligibility period.
>
> (You can also get your password sent to you with the "Edit Options")
>

-- 

  Douglas E. Engert  <DEEngert@anl.gov>
  Argonne National Laboratory
  9700 South Cass Avenue
  Argonne, Illinois  60439
  (630) 252-5444

From adeason@sinenomine.net  Mon Aug  8 18:32:58 2011
From: adeason@sinenomine.net (Andrew Deason)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 12:32:58 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <20110808123258.59cc0539.adeason@sinenomine.net>

On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 18:06:25 -0700
Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> wrote:

> Or, hm, I suppose if you squint at it right, you can decide that
> "number of seconds" isn't just elapsed actual time, but includes the
> leap seconds that were inserted.  Which would also work for our
> phrasing.  Maybe we could just say that explicitly.  Something like:
> 
>     the number of seconds and nanoseconds since midnight or 0 hour
>     January 1, 1970 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), including any
>     leap seconds inserted into UTC.

It's very possible I am backwards on this, but shouldn't this be
"excluding any leap seconds"? That is, in our time representation,
there is a difference of 1 "second" (however we define "second") between
the times 31 Dec 2005 23:59:59 and 01 Jan 2006 00:00:00, even though
there was a leap second at 31 Dec 2005 23:59:60. That is, I thought we'd
be following UTC more than TAI.

And also, I did find another instance of this being mentioned in IETF
RFCs. RFC 4049 states in Section 2 (at the top of the second page):

    The integer value is the number of seconds, excluding leap seconds,
    after midnight UTC, January 1, 1970.  

Would that work for us?

-- 
Andrew Deason
adeason@sinenomine.net


From rra@stanford.edu  Mon Aug  8 18:50:11 2011
From: rra@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 10:50:11 -0700
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <20110808123258.59cc0539.adeason@sinenomine.net> (Andrew Deason's
 message of "Mon, 8 Aug 2011 12:32:58 -0500")
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110808123258.59cc0539.adeason@sinenomine.net>
Message-ID: <8762m7ztbg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>

Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> writes:
> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> wrote:

>> Or, hm, I suppose if you squint at it right, you can decide that
>> "number of seconds" isn't just elapsed actual time, but includes the
>> leap seconds that were inserted.  Which would also work for our
>> phrasing.  Maybe we could just say that explicitly.  Something like:
>> 
>>     the number of seconds and nanoseconds since midnight or 0 hour
>>     January 1, 1970 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), including any
>>     leap seconds inserted into UTC.

> It's very possible I am backwards on this, but shouldn't this be
> "excluding any leap seconds"?

Oh, yes, you're exactly right.  Thank you.

> That is, in our time representation, there is a difference of 1 "second"
> (however we define "second") between the times 31 Dec 2005 23:59:59 and
> 01 Jan 2006 00:00:00, even though there was a leap second at 31 Dec 2005
> 23:59:60. That is, I thought we'd be following UTC more than TAI.

Yes, correct.

> And also, I did find another instance of this being mentioned in IETF
> RFCs. RFC 4049 states in Section 2 (at the top of the second page):

>     The integer value is the number of seconds, excluding leap seconds,
>     after midnight UTC, January 1, 1970.  

> Would that work for us?

That sounds great to me.

We could take the same approach if we use the other epoch, although I
think we should be more wordy about it:

    The integer value is the number of seconds, excluding leap seconds,
    after midnight, January 1, 1601 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), in
    the Gregorian calendar.

        NOTE: Neither the Gregorian calendar or the modern UTC time zone
        were in use in most of the world at that date, but times are
        represented as if they were, using the obvious backwards
        projection of the current UTC time zone and Gregorian calendar
        rules to January 1, 1601.  Be aware that any real-world times from
        that era will likely require Julian to Gregorian calendar
        conversions to be represented in this format and probably cannot
        be simply converted using normal time conversions from the modern
        era.

I think that phrasing would resolve my objections to the epoch, along with
the additional bits that are in the current draft about how to convert.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

From adeason@sinenomine.net  Mon Aug  8 18:54:03 2011
From: adeason@sinenomine.net (Andrew Deason)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 12:54:03 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
References: <4E2082C6.80609@anl.gov>
Message-ID: <20110808125403.f9b913b3.adeason@sinenomine.net>

On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 13:11:18 -0500
"Douglas E. Engert" <deengert@anl.gov> wrote:

> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-deason-afs3-type-time/

Based on the threads in afs3-stds, and on discussions I've had with
others, I propose the following going forward. This is what I'm working
on for an -03 draft, and it's what will appear unless I hear objections.

The epoch will be changed to the Unix epoch. Absolute time will be
signed so we can still represent the windows stuff. The language will
also be changed a bit according to Russ's suggestions ("number of
seconds since 1970 excluding leap seconds" or whatever it turns out to
be, see this sub-thread:
<http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.afs.standardization/1148/focus=1184>).

The granularity in this draft will not be changed. However, additional
types will be proposed to be used for higher efficiency and higher
granularity. That is, the current types will be AFSAbsTime64 which
corresponds to 64-bit 100-ns time, but we will also have types such as
AFSAbsTime32 (32-bit 1-s time) and AFSAbsTime96 (64-bit 1-s time plus
32-bit 1-ns). RPCs for which this matters will use some way of
accomodating and specifying these other types, but how they do so is
outside the scope of this draft (in theory this could be unions,
extended unions, separate RPCs etc; in practice right now we expect
extended unions).

In the interest of getting this i-d done as quickly as we can, the other
time types will not be added to this draft, but will be proposed in
separate i-ds and if we need to we can argue about them then. So, the
only change for draft-deason-afs3-type-time is that the type names will
be changed to AFSAbsTime64 etc, and I will include a paragraph
discussing the rationale and the future use of other time types for
interoperability and efficiency. I feel this will satisfy everyone's
concerns, as this approach should allow us to interoperate well with
other systems, but the common case should be kept nearly as efficient as
the current draft.

-- 
Andrew Deason
adeason@sinenomine.net


From adeason@sinenomine.net  Mon Aug  8 18:58:57 2011
From: adeason@sinenomine.net (Andrew Deason)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 12:58:57 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110808123258.59cc0539.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <8762m7ztbg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <20110808125857.a055922a.adeason@sinenomine.net>

On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 10:50:11 -0700
Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> wrote:

> We could take the same approach if we use the other epoch, although I
> think we should be more wordy about it:

Oh, I thought we'd just use the Unix epoch since it just makes some of
this easier. A note on converting to pre-UTC dates seems good, though.

Also just by the way, NTPv4 apparently uses an epoch in 1900. They have
this to say about it in RFC 5905:

    In the date and timestamp formats, the prime epoch, or base date of
    era 0, is 0 h 1 January 1900 UTC, when all bits are zero.  It should
    be noted that strictly speaking, UTC did not exist prior to 1
    January 1972, but it is convenient to assume it has existed for all
    eternity, even if all knowledge of historic leap seconds has been
    lost.

-- 
Andrew Deason
adeason@sinenomine.net


From rra@stanford.edu  Mon Aug  8 20:50:40 2011
From: rra@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:50:40 -0700
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <20110808125857.a055922a.adeason@sinenomine.net> (Andrew Deason's
 message of "Mon, 8 Aug 2011 12:58:57 -0500")
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110808123258.59cc0539.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <8762m7ztbg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110808125857.a055922a.adeason@sinenomine.net>
Message-ID: <87k4any967.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>

Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> writes:
> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> wrote:

>> We could take the same approach if we use the other epoch, although I
>> think we should be more wordy about it:

> Oh, I thought we'd just use the Unix epoch since it just makes some of
> this easier. A note on converting to pre-UTC dates seems good, though.

Jeffrey has a good point, though: we lose representability of dates that
can currently be handled with CIFS.

> Also just by the way, NTPv4 apparently uses an epoch in 1900. They have
> this to say about it in RFC 5905:

>     In the date and timestamp formats, the prime epoch, or base date of
>     era 0, is 0 h 1 January 1900 UTC, when all bits are zero.  It should
>     be noted that strictly speaking, UTC did not exist prior to 1
>     January 1972, but it is convenient to assume it has existed for all
>     eternity, even if all knowledge of historic leap seconds has been
>     lost.

Yeah, that's similar in intention to my note.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

From adeason@sinenomine.net  Mon Aug  8 21:42:13 2011
From: adeason@sinenomine.net (Andrew Deason)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 15:42:13 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110808123258.59cc0539.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <8762m7ztbg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110808125857.a055922a.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87k4any967.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <20110808154213.4ce21908.adeason@sinenomine.net>

On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:50:40 -0700
Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> wrote:

> Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> writes:
> > Oh, I thought we'd just use the Unix epoch since it just makes some
> > of this easier. A note on converting to pre-UTC dates seems good,
> > though.
> 
> Jeffrey has a good point, though: we lose representability of dates
> that can currently be handled with CIFS.

Then we just make the absolute timestamps signed. It just seems better
to me to start from an epoch that's a bit more well-defined (or at
least, more easily well-defined; we can always define 1 Jan 1600 as X
seconds before 1 Jan 1970, but that seems strangely indirect).

-- 
Andrew Deason
adeason@sinenomine.net


From rra@stanford.edu  Mon Aug  8 21:49:42 2011
From: rra@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:49:42 -0700
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <20110808154213.4ce21908.adeason@sinenomine.net> (Andrew Deason's
 message of "Mon, 8 Aug 2011 15:42:13 -0500")
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110808123258.59cc0539.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <8762m7ztbg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110808125857.a055922a.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87k4any967.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110808154213.4ce21908.adeason@sinenomine.net>
Message-ID: <87sjpbwrvd.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>

Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> writes:
> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> wrote:

>> Jeffrey has a good point, though: we lose representability of dates
>> that can currently be handled with CIFS.

> Then we just make the absolute timestamps signed. It just seems better
> to me to start from an epoch that's a bit more well-defined (or at
> least, more easily well-defined; we can always define 1 Jan 1600 as X
> seconds before 1 Jan 1970, but that seems strangely indirect).

I guess I'm ambivalent between signed timestamps and the Windows epoch.
Both of them are going to be at least somewhat unusual for typical UNIX
code.  My guess is that it will be easier to explain the Windows epoch
than it will be to explain signed arithmetic on times, but I could be
wrong.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

From jaltman@secure-endpoints.com  Mon Aug  8 22:25:48 2011
From: jaltman@secure-endpoints.com (Jeffrey Altman)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 17:25:48 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <20110808154213.4ce21908.adeason@sinenomine.net>
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>	<4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>	<D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>	<87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>	<87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<20110808123258.59cc0539.adeason@sinenomine.net>	<8762m7ztbg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<20110808125857.a055922a.adeason@sinenomine.net>	<87k4any967.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <20110808154213.4ce21908.adeason@sinenomine.net>
Message-ID: <4E40545C.6080600@secure-endpoints.com>

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig4AFFD422C27516B82CF3A430
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 8/8/2011 4:42 PM, Andrew Deason wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:50:40 -0700
> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> wrote:
>=20
>> Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> writes:
>>> Oh, I thought we'd just use the Unix epoch since it just makes some
>>> of this easier. A note on converting to pre-UTC dates seems good,
>>> though.
>>
>> Jeffrey has a good point, though: we lose representability of dates
>> that can currently be handled with CIFS.
>=20
> Then we just make the absolute timestamps signed. It just seems better
> to me to start from an epoch that's a bit more well-defined (or at
> least, more easily well-defined; we can always define 1 Jan 1600 as X
> seconds before 1 Jan 1970, but that seems strangely indirect).

I don't have a strong feeling about the epoch.  I am fine with negative
timestamp values.



--------------enig4AFFD422C27516B82CF3A430
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOQFRfAAoJENxm1CNJffh41zQH/1a3yikgeEdDGPesg+i901Bu
vj/9ivedJ558iUUp4IuR4lC+JB236gh9AH0Mb5lt3FTPkfkX7nM+K9ZH5zDHFhSO
O+6TPvMtogJZi94yB7O/1M0cWy+D2NbY+glWBtZCzzOYf1xOyrgSozr+D6xwykS/
pVE8NpJ4zApX/94d1pNWXa+wIRSQO1RTJ2nQR8hLCMGUFaQapwKmpAPKhglKJFFH
Jl9gvt9Pb5eCFiqq5VO+ps49Ny8lCYL/49HMeF1jGSJyWs8cDJklKq3BFCn5ansd
HzN0ksSlJC6YRlj12EtacdoG0hrym2+BNCMNh2MdPduR24av5D7Aiur0b2rrWb4=
=47yu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig4AFFD422C27516B82CF3A430--


From deengert@anl.gov  Wed Aug 10 13:48:38 2011
From: deengert@anl.gov (Douglas E. Engert)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 07:48:38 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Call for nomination for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <4E38253A.6000001@anl.gov>
References: <4E38253A.6000001@anl.gov>
Message-ID: <4E427E26.9040009@anl.gov>

Let me restate this again, we have received only one nomination,
so I have also nominated 2 people. We are waiting for these 3
people to respond that they would be willing to run.

So please send in nominations to Hartmut and myself.


On 8/2/2011 11:26 AM, Douglas E. Engert wrote:
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wilkinson-afs3-standardisation-00.txt
>
> defines our election procedures to elect a co-chair. It is my position
> that is up for election, as I have the one year term. Hartmut Reuter
> is the other co-chair with the 2 year term, due to expire next year.
>
> Schedule:
> Nominations open 8/2 - 8/16
> Announcement of nominations 8/17
> Voting 8-17 - 8/31
> Election results 9/7
>
> Please read section 2.2.2 as to who can be nominated, and who can vote.
>
> Send nominations to Hartmut and myself as the vote takers, and we can
> contact the potential nominees to make sure they are willing to serve.
>
> As Jeff points out:
>  > The subscriber list is not public; however, any subscriber can obtain a
>  > copy by filling in his username and password near the bottom of the page
>  > at https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization and
>  > selecting "Visit Subscriber List". Of course, that's as of today. To
>  > build a voter list, you also need to know that there have been no new
>  > subscribers and no one has unsubscribed since April 25, before the start
>  > of the eligibility period.
>
> (You can also get your password sent to you with the "Edit Options")
>

-- 

  Douglas E. Engert  <DEEngert@anl.gov>
  Argonne National Laboratory
  9700 South Cass Avenue
  Argonne, Illinois  60439
  (630) 252-5444
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
AFS3-standardization@openafs.org
http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization



From jhutz@cmu.edu  Wed Aug 10 13:58:17 2011
From: jhutz@cmu.edu (Jeffrey Hutzelman)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:58:17 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Call for nomination for the position of
 AFS3-standardization co-chair
In-Reply-To: <4E427E26.9040009@anl.gov>
References: <4E38253A.6000001@anl.gov>  <4E427E26.9040009@anl.gov>
Message-ID: <1312981097.3168.159.camel@destiny.pc.cs.cmu.edu>

On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 07:48 -0500, Douglas E. Engert wrote:
> Let me restate this again, we have received only one nomination,
> so I have also nominated 2 people. We are waiting for these 3
> people to respond that they would be willing to run.

Per 2.2.2, nominations are supposed to be sent to this mailing list, and
each nomination should be made and seconded by eligible voters.  I don't
see that any nominations have gone to the list so far.  It would be good
if those who have already made nominations would copy them to the list;
otherwise it will be hard to get a second. :-)

-- Jeff


From deengert@anl.gov  Wed Aug 10 14:08:24 2011
From: deengert@anl.gov (Douglas E. Engert)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:08:24 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Call for nomination for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <1312981097.3168.159.camel@destiny.pc.cs.cmu.edu>
References: <4E38253A.6000001@anl.gov>  <4E427E26.9040009@anl.gov> <1312981097.3168.159.camel@destiny.pc.cs.cmu.edu>
Message-ID: <4E4282C8.8030702@anl.gov>


On 8/10/2011 7:58 AM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 07:48 -0500, Douglas E. Engert wrote:
>> Let me restate this again, we have received only one nomination,
>> so I have also nominated 2 people. We are waiting for these 3
>> people to respond that they would be willing to run.
>
> Per 2.2.2, nominations are supposed to be sent to this mailing list, and
> each nomination should be made and seconded by eligible voters.  I don't
> see that any nominations have gone to the list so far.  It would be good
> if those who have already made nominations would copy them to the list;
> otherwise it will be hard to get a second. :-)

Good point. So far no one has indicated that they are "Any consenting individual"
so I have not put their name out. The other note sent to the vote takers,
gave a name, and I am waiting for a reply as to weither that individual
is willing.

>
> -- Jeff
>
>

-- 

  Douglas E. Engert  <DEEngert@anl.gov>
  Argonne National Laboratory
  9700 South Cass Avenue
  Argonne, Illinois  60439
  (630) 252-5444

From deengert@anl.gov  Wed Aug 10 14:45:50 2011
From: deengert@anl.gov (Douglas E. Engert)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:45:50 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Call for nomination for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <4E38253A.6000001@anl.gov>
References: <4E38253A.6000001@anl.gov>
Message-ID: <4E428B8E.9040602@anl.gov>

I (as a group member, not as co-chair) would like to place in nomination
for the co-chair of the AFS3-standardization group, Jeffrey Hutzelman.

Jeff's IETF experiences, knowledge of AFS, and
organizations skills make him an ideal candidate for the position.


On 8/2/2011 11:26 AM, Douglas E. Engert wrote:
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wilkinson-afs3-standardisation-00.txt
>
> defines our election procedures to elect a co-chair. It is my position
> that is up for election, as I have the one year term. Hartmut Reuter
> is the other co-chair with the 2 year term, due to expire next year.
>
> Schedule:
> Nominations open 8/2 - 8/16
> Announcement of nominations 8/17
> Voting 8-17 - 8/31
> Election results 9/7
>
> Please read section 2.2.2 as to who can be nominated, and who can vote.
>
> Send nominations to Hartmut and myself as the vote takers, and we can
> contact the potential nominees to make sure they are willing to serve.
>
> As Jeff points out:
>  > The subscriber list is not public; however, any subscriber can obtain a
>  > copy by filling in his username and password near the bottom of the page
>  > at https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization and
>  > selecting "Visit Subscriber List". Of course, that's as of today. To
>  > build a voter list, you also need to know that there have been no new
>  > subscribers and no one has unsubscribed since April 25, before the start
>  > of the eligibility period.
>
> (You can also get your password sent to you with the "Edit Options")
>

-- 

  Douglas E. Engert  <DEEngert@anl.gov>
  Argonne National Laboratory
  9700 South Cass Avenue
  Argonne, Illinois  60439
  (630) 252-5444

From matt@linuxbox.com  Wed Aug 10 15:10:02 2011
From: matt@linuxbox.com (Matt W. Benjamin)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 10:10:02 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [AFS3-std] Call for nomination for the position of
 AFS3-standardization co-chair
In-Reply-To: <4E428B8E.9040602@anl.gov>
Message-ID: <562730635.18.1312985402484.JavaMail.root@thunderbeast.private.linuxbox.com>

Second.

----- "Douglas E. Engert" <deengert@anl.gov> wrote:

> I (as a group member, not as co-chair) would like to place in
> nomination
> for the co-chair of the AFS3-standardization group, Jeffrey
> Hutzelman.
> 
> Jeff's IETF experiences, knowledge of AFS, and
> organizations skills make him an ideal candidate for the position.
> 
> 
-- 

Matt Benjamin

The Linux Box
206 South Fifth Ave. Suite 150
Ann Arbor, MI  48104

http://linuxbox.com

tel. 734-761-4689
fax. 734-769-8938
cel. 734-216-5309

From jaltman@secure-endpoints.com  Wed Aug 10 16:00:04 2011
From: jaltman@secure-endpoints.com (Jeffrey Altman)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:00:04 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Call for nomination for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <562730635.18.1312985402484.JavaMail.root@thunderbeast.private.linuxbox.com>
References: <562730635.18.1312985402484.JavaMail.root@thunderbeast.private.linuxbox.com>
Message-ID: <4E429CF4.5060705@secure-endpoints.com>

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig4E96346D395F7DE12DCC99A3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 8/10/2011 10:10 AM, Matt W. Benjamin wrote:
> Second.
>=20
> ----- "Douglas E. Engert" <deengert@anl.gov> wrote:
>=20
>> I (as a group member, not as co-chair) would like to place in
>> nomination
>> for the co-chair of the AFS3-standardization group, Jeffrey
>> Hutzelman.
>>
>> Jeff's IETF experiences, knowledge of AFS, and
>> organizations skills make him an ideal candidate for the position.
>>
>>

I believe that Jeff would make an excellent chair (if he has time) but
would prefer that the Chair not also be a registrar.



--------------enig4E96346D395F7DE12DCC99A3
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOQpz3AAoJENxm1CNJffh4YcYH/2UAYaa+ASU7rCdoqMODFk1D
efEUmqC1fwllQ+RCfTLzBJdLUM/9a0tT4/EPmKtfQ+TqGAAfe56ncmykpwDsSM+w
qsNOPxC+5J9YpAi9CCsNx0i6ynuTAd7i/pLrxl2ZbBGIgHXcTx+GqVLneummsdvb
I4KLDxYYIZOhz6LTywKZBIfrm5JuO3SUI1W8JQ+1BbTXjyRl6u+N5qW+8p4JGy0q
G7ZXnLMmJwYuW8XqaJqG+q0LOuGiKcggYX9Gzs9o4lGp0B+l0Jf2LftM1Vp8epUO
aBAVyhW7MF3tZQEys3K0/r6GVnSiQqJuAB01FTzD5M86wdsnuLp7XW/njYcuy+Y=
=EpGd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig4E96346D395F7DE12DCC99A3--


From deengert@anl.gov  Wed Aug 10 16:22:50 2011
From: deengert@anl.gov (Douglas E. Engert)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 10:22:50 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Call for nomination for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <4E429CF4.5060705@secure-endpoints.com>
References: <562730635.18.1312985402484.JavaMail.root@thunderbeast.private.linuxbox.com> <4E429CF4.5060705@secure-endpoints.com>
Message-ID: <4E42A24A.6090206@anl.gov>


On 8/10/2011 10:00 AM, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
> On 8/10/2011 10:10 AM, Matt W. Benjamin wrote:
>> Second.
>>
>> ----- "Douglas E. Engert"<deengert@anl.gov>  wrote:
>>
>>> I (as a group member, not as co-chair) would like to place in
>>> nomination
>>> for the co-chair of the AFS3-standardization group, Jeffrey
>>> Hutzelman.
>>>
>>> Jeff's IETF experiences, knowledge of AFS, and
>>> organizations skills make him an ideal candidate for the position.
>>>
>>>
>
> I believe that Jeff would make an excellent chair (if he has time) but
> would prefer that the Chair not also be a registrar.

I understand.  Section 2.3.2 says: "it is proposed to extend the role of
registrar to include a number of individuals from the community."
So the work could be spread around if that is the issue.

>
>

-- 

  Douglas E. Engert  <DEEngert@anl.gov>
  Argonne National Laboratory
  9700 South Cass Avenue
  Argonne, Illinois  60439
  (630) 252-5444

From scs@umich.edu  Wed Aug 10 16:53:37 2011
From: scs@umich.edu (Steve Simmons)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:53:37 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <87bow86cqs.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org> <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu> <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk> <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net> <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk> <87wrex836y.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <4E36E4D7.9010308@secure-endpoints.com> <87fwll81hg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <4E36E9F5.9000502@secure-endpoints.com> <871ux580f5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <4E371520.2050905@secure-endpoints.com> <87livc6del.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <4E371886.8010307@secure-endpoints.com> <87bow86cqs.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <11B3F212-2286-4452-9917-88D390C380BD@umich.edu>

On Aug 1, 2011, at 5:30 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:

> . . . One of the interesting questions is whether conversion of
> the first and last calendar times above are, when represented as
> timestamps, one second apart or two seconds apart.
>=20
> Note that, in POSIX, they're one second apart, because POSIX time =
contains
> no leap seconds by definition (which means that it's not really =
possible
> to accurately represent those dates).
>=20
> On UNIX systems, using mktime on those dates will generally convert as
> follows:
>=20
>    1972-06-30 23:59:59         78821999
>    1972-06-30 23:59:60         78822000
>    1972-07-01 00:00:00         78822000
>=20
> There's not really a "right" answer here; we just need to say what the
> answer is.

The last paragraph says it, both w/r/t the POSIX issues above and the =
various other time issues discussed in this thread. We don't need to be =
absolutely right*, nor do we necessarily need to be fully in agreement =
with any other vendor or standards system. We just need to say what we =
are doing.

I proposed we be broken in the same way POSIX is broken, rather than =
being any other brand of broken or inventing our own. :-)

Steve

* IMHO 'absolutely right' would involved knowing what is right, and =
presenting to all the other broken implementations their expected broken =
data. The former is beyond our scope and abilities, the latter . . . =
well, that way lies madness. Let's face it, 99.99% of the time all we're =
talking about are filesystem timestamps. If someone wants to touch a =
file with the date Sept 10 1752 and not specify anything else about how =
to interpret that date, they deserve the wrongness they get. And anybody =
who's doing work where leap seconds and calendar type transitions matter =
is not doing it using POSIX, Windows, or any other OS-time =
representation.**

** No, I have no freaking idea what they're using.=

From deengert@anl.gov  Wed Aug 10 22:15:26 2011
From: deengert@anl.gov (Douglas E. Engert)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 16:15:26 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] AFS3-standardization Co-Chair Nominations time commitments
Message-ID: <4E42F4EE.7020807@anl.gov>

One of the potential nominees asked:

 > Can you give me some idea of what time commitment is required?

So far it has been only a few hours a week, but depending on how much you
want to get involved, and how many drafts are active, it could be more.

There are no meeting you have to attend, and the duties of a co-chair are to
keep the group inline, and moving.  A co-chair could then leave it up to the
author of a draft to handle all the issues for a draft or get more involved
if this is not happening. (So far that has not been a problem.)

The chair does not have to be an expert in the details of a draft, but needs
to recognize that others in the group have issues and if there is general
consensuses for a draft.

After consensuses, we are submitting our drafts as IETF Independent
Submissions to the RFC editor. As this process is designed for individuals,
not groups, I have left the submission up to the authors.  We are breaking
ground as a group in submitting a  group approved draft in this way.

We have our first draft in that state waiting for the three reviewers (they
know who they are) to get their reviews in to the RFC Editor. I have had some
e-mail discussions with the IETF RFC Editor on this process.
on behalf of the group.

When the first draft is reviewed, I expect that there will be some additional
text that needs  to be added to the draft, and to all our drafts. The
individual authors of the drafts will have to do this. It is up to the Chair
to keep after them.

There are two chairs, Hartmut is the co-chair, for one more year, and the new
co-chair will have a 2 year term. So it is up to the chairs how the work is
split, and how much time you want to put into it.

-- 

  Douglas E. Engert  <DEEngert@anl.gov>
  Argonne National Laboratory
  9700 South Cass Avenue
  Argonne, Illinois  60439
  (630) 252-5444

From adeason@sinenomine.net  Fri Aug 12 17:31:02 2011
From: adeason@sinenomine.net (Andrew Deason)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 11:31:02 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: Call for nomination for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <4E38253A.6000001@anl.gov>
References: <4E38253A.6000001@anl.gov>
Message-ID: <20110812113102.6efde0c0.adeason@sinenomine.net>

I nominate Mike Meffie for co-chair of the AFS3 standardization group.

-- 
Andrew Deason
adeason@sinenomine.net

From jhutz@cmu.edu  Fri Aug 12 22:08:57 2011
From: jhutz@cmu.edu (Jeffrey Hutzelman)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 17:08:57 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Call for nomination for the position of
 AFS3-standardization co-chair
In-Reply-To: <4E429CF4.5060705@secure-endpoints.com>
References: <562730635.18.1312985402484.JavaMail.root@thunderbeast.private.linuxbox.com>
 <4E429CF4.5060705@secure-endpoints.com>
Message-ID: <1313183337.3168.275.camel@destiny.pc.cs.cmu.edu>

On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 11:00 -0400, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
> On 8/10/2011 10:10 AM, Matt W. Benjamin wrote:
> > Second.
> > 
> > ----- "Douglas E. Engert" <deengert@anl.gov> wrote:
> > 
> >> I (as a group member, not as co-chair) would like to place in
> >> nomination
> >> for the co-chair of the AFS3-standardization group, Jeffrey
> >> Hutzelman.
> >>
> >> Jeff's IETF experiences, knowledge of AFS, and
> >> organizations skills make him an ideal candidate for the position.

Accept.



> I believe that Jeff would make an excellent chair (if he has time) but
> would prefer that the Chair not also be a registrar.

I'd very much like to take a -- I was going to say "less active", but I
really mean more like "less blocking" -- role in the registrar process.
We actually have other registrars; perhaps if we can get them truly spun
up to the point where they are handling day-to-day requests, such things
can actually be handled day-to-day.

That said, I don't think there's a strong conflict here; neither chairs
nor registrars are intended as a check on the power of the other.

-- Jeff


From matt@linuxbox.com  Sat Aug 13 01:03:09 2011
From: matt@linuxbox.com (Matt W. Benjamin)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 20:03:09 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: Call for nomination for the position of
 AFS3-standardization co-chair
In-Reply-To: <20110812113102.6efde0c0.adeason@sinenomine.net>
Message-ID: <1764277117.94.1313193789600.JavaMail.root@thunderbeast.private.linuxbox.com>

Hi,

I will second this, I assume it means Mike is a volunteer.

Matt

----- "Andrew Deason" <adeason@sinenomine.net> wrote:

> I nominate Mike Meffie for co-chair of the AFS3 standardization
> group.
> 
> -- 
> Andrew Deason
> adeason@sinenomine.net
> _______________________________________________
> AFS3-standardization mailing list
> AFS3-standardization@openafs.org
> http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization

-- 

Matt Benjamin

The Linux Box
206 South Fifth Ave. Suite 150
Ann Arbor, MI  48104

http://linuxbox.com

tel. 734-761-4689
fax. 734-769-8938
cel. 734-216-5309

From deengert@anl.gov  Tue Aug 16 15:09:01 2011
From: deengert@anl.gov (Douglas E. Engert)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 09:09:01 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Fwd: Re: [rfc-ise] AFS3 Standardization  and Independent Submissions
Message-ID: <4E4A79FD.2000808@anl.gov>

Our first draft is moving through the IETF Independent Submission Process=
,
and is now waiting for the author.

As far as I know, the two other reviewers have not sent in their reviews.
and it would be good have have all the reviews in before submitting a new=
 draft.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [rfc-ise] AFS3 Standardization  and Independent Submissions
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 17:15:07 -0700
From: Nevil Brownlee <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org>
Organization: Independent Stream
To: Derrick Brashear <shadow@gmail.com>
CC: ISE <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org>, Hartmut Reuter <reuter@rzg.mpg.de>,  "D=
ouglas E. Engert" <deengert@anl.gov>


Hi Derrick:

Henry Hotz has sent me the appended review of your draft, so I've changed
its state to ISR-AUTH.  Would you please consider his comments, and publi=
sh
a new revision that addresses them.

I'm still waiting for reviews from Simon Wilkinson and Jeff Altman, I'll
prod them now!

Cheers, Nevil


On 08/01/2011 06:21 PM, Henry B. Hotz wrote:
> I've looked at<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brashear-afs3-pts-exten=
ded-names-09>  and it is generally fine per-se as to content.
>
> What I see as significant problems are historical artifacts of the stan=
dardization process.  This document updates a protocol that does not have=
 a pre-existing standard description.  Consequently, there are a number o=
f things which are referenced, but not defined.
>
> The biggie is the Rx protocol itself.  The standard reference for that =
is Ed Zayas' "AFS-3 Programmer=92s Reference: Specification for the Rx Re=
mote Procedure Call Facility", Version 1.2 of 28 August 1991.  I don't kn=
ow if that should be a normative or informative reference.  I'm inclined =
to say informative since it isn't a standards document and wasn't even re=
ally binding on Transarc when they put it out.
>
> That document appears to define everything which I had marked as needin=
g definition when I read the draft.
>
> The following comments are just nits:
>
> An informative reference to "AFS-3 Programmer=92s Reference: Architectu=
ral Overview" might also be useful, but not necessary.  (It's referenced =
by the Rx doc anyway.)
>
> Section 6 makes no mention of how an entity is authenticated.  Not sure=
 it needs to, but I felt funny about it.
>
> The sentence "It is expected. . ." near the top of page 6 seems unclear=
 to me.  More generally the language concerning how names are to be compa=
red stays strictly to what the GSSAPI standards say.  Speaking from exper=
ience people violate the "MUST NOT" because they need to deal with case-f=
olding caused by Microsoft Active Directory.  I wish I had some standards=
-confoming procedure which also worked with AD without deployment convent=
ions or other presumptions, but I don't.  Absent such a thing I can't sug=
gest (or even ask for) changes, but I could wish for some language that b=
etter reflected practical necessity.
>
> The PrCapabilities line near the top of page 7 should be indented one m=
ore level.
>
>
> On Jun 1, 2011, at 7:00 PM, Nevil Brownlee wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Henry:
>>
>> It's been about three weeks since you volunteered to review
>> the draft: draft-brashear-afs3-pts-extended-names
>>
>> Can you estimate when you'll be able to send me the review,
>> please?
>>
>> Cheers, Nevil
>>
>>
>> On 9/05/11 12:26 PM, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
>>> Nevil:
>>>
>>> Both Simon and I will do so.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Jeffrey Altman
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/8/2011 6:45 PM, Nevil Brownlee wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Douglas:
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you've defined 'independent reviewer' correctly.
>>>>
>>>> Two reviews would be enough, that would be Henry (not involved
>>>> in AFS3 efforts) and one other - Simon and Jeff, could you please
>>>> decide which of you will do it? (Of course, if you'd both like to,
>>>> that would be fine too).
>>>>
>>>> Here's the note I usually send to prospective reviewers:
>>>>
>>>>    "would you be prepared to do a more detailed review, with two
>>>>     parts:
>>>>      a) Comments for the Authors
>>>>           Reasons for rejection or suggestions for improvements.
>>>>           These will be returned to authors (or you may wish to have
>>>>           email discussions directly with authors).  Could they also
>>>>           be published on the Independent Submissions web site,
>>>>           either as public reviews or as anonymous reviews?
>>>>      b) Comments for the Independent Submissions Editor
>>>>          These are advice to the ISE, and will not be published."
>>>>
>>>> Cheers, Nevil
>>
>> --
>> Nevil Brownlee (ISE), rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> The opinions expressed in this message are mine,
> not those of Caltech, JPL, NASA, or the US Government.
> Henry.B.Hotz@jpl.nasa.gov, or hbhotz@oxy.edu
>
>
>


--=20
Nevil Brownlee (ISE), rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org



From mmeffie@sinenomine.net  Tue Aug 16 17:40:41 2011
From: mmeffie@sinenomine.net (Michael Meffie)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:40:41 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: Call for nomination for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <1764277117.94.1313193789600.JavaMail.root@thunderbeast.private.linuxbox.com>
References: <1764277117.94.1313193789600.JavaMail.root@thunderbeast.private.linuxbox.com>
Message-ID: <4E4A9D89.50600@sinenomine.net>

Matt W. Benjamin wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I will second this, I assume it means Mike is a volunteer.

Yes, thank you. I do accept the nomination.

Mike --

From deengert@anl.gov  Wed Aug 17 19:55:01 2011
From: deengert@anl.gov (Douglas E. Engert)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 13:55:01 -0500
Subject: Fwd: [AFS3-std] Call for nomination for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
Message-ID: <4E4C0E85.90908@anl.gov>

Today is the day to announce the nominations. But I am having
problems getting in touch with our co-chair, Hartmut. The
co-chairs have to agree on the nominations, and count the votes.

I have not heard from him since March. I have a note into
3 contacts and the secretaries at rzg.mpg.de to see if
they know anything. (They may not see the note till tomorrow.)

Has anyone heard anything?

(It could just be August is vacation time for many of us, and
in the  future we should consider moving back the elections
till a month or two.)


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [AFS3-std] Call for nomination for the position of  AFS3-standardization co-chair
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 11:26:34 -0500
From: Douglas E. Engert <deengert@anl.gov>
To: afs3-standardization@openafs.org <afs3-standardization@openafs.org>
CC: Hartmut Reuter <reuter@rzg.mpg.de>,	"Douglas E. Engert" <deengert@anl.gov>

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wilkinson-afs3-standardisation-00.txt

defines our election procedures to elect a co-chair. It is my position
that is up for election, as I have the one year term. Hartmut Reuter
is the other co-chair with the 2 year term, due to expire next year.

Schedule:
   Nominations open            8/2 - 8/16
   Announcement of nominations 8/17
   Voting                      8-17 - 8/31
   Election results            9/7

Please read section 2.2.2 as to who can be nominated, and who can vote.

Send nominations to Hartmut and myself as the vote takers, and we can
contact the potential nominees to make sure they are willing to serve.

As Jeff points out:
> The subscriber list is not public; however, any subscriber can obtain a
> copy by filling in his username and password near the bottom of the page
> at https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization and
> selecting "Visit Subscriber List".  Of course, that's as of today.  To
> build a voter list, you also need to know that there have been no new
> subscribers and no one has unsubscribed since April 25, before the start
> of the eligibility period.

(You can also get your password sent to you with the "Edit Options")

-- 

  Douglas E. Engert  <DEEngert@anl.gov>
  Argonne National Laboratory
  9700 South Cass Avenue
  Argonne, Illinois  60439
  (630) 252-5444
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
AFS3-standardization@openafs.org
http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization



From jaltman@secure-endpoints.com  Thu Aug 18 02:46:45 2011
From: jaltman@secure-endpoints.com (Jeffrey Altman)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 21:46:45 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <87k4any967.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>	<4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>	<D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>	<87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>	<87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<20110808123258.59cc0539.adeason@sinenomine.net>	<8762m7ztbg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<20110808125857.a055922a.adeason@sinenomine.net> <87k4any967.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <4E4C6F05.2070701@secure-endpoints.com>

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig960E6E28E0B52C10FA2FA539
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I came across this today which might be of interest:

http://data.iers.org/products/16/14844/orig/bulletinc-042.txt

Quoting:

"IMPORTANT: After years of discussions, a proposal to fundamentally
redefine UTC will come to a conclusive vote in January 2012 at the ITU-R
in Geneva.

"This proposal would halt the intercalary adjustments known as leap
seconds that maintain UTC as a form of Universal Time."


If the proposal is approved it the definition would change in five years
from the vote.

Our input will be accepted on the subject until the end of August.
There are some interesting papers linked from the questionnaire.

http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/index.php?index=3Dquestionnaire



--------------enig960E6E28E0B52C10FA2FA539
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOTG8IAAoJENxm1CNJffh4YwoH+gLXPdKaRz766xaAh+8gt6J8
sYjHtmMlBr5PWOaPMBi5LUS/QAXTyhZS/EfyxMang48B/ByM44h07nhtXoe+qW9f
xk9s0+s3UnPbjpw3+USi9LoeBgAW2x+LVMpL76be9DBM+iTQ2VQT0KrY9cu7Jy+v
mGkLWImwfVkGUQczUdvzKNA1oyAm1VdJuYhOFx7meLK3HBmmJL4wSDizb6HiU7Ze
s5tp1NLMSctvTJItRSXb9OebXQEEzlSqyVjG1VXOk1GSaGX7sExPZT3fDc//NcV4
GeeiqaUL4eonGcPoKTYn+bBtaXRMZlJKYrUDTolPZ0b4MophVkmr5uA1bmm+GRU=
=txEM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig960E6E28E0B52C10FA2FA539--


From reuter@rzg.mpg.de  Thu Aug 18 13:26:53 2011
From: reuter@rzg.mpg.de (Hartmut Reuter)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:26:53 +0200
Subject: Fwd: [AFS3-std] Call for nomination for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <4E4C0E85.90908@anl.gov>
References: <4E4C0E85.90908@anl.gov>
Message-ID: <4E4D050D.2050201@rzg.mpg.de>

Douglas E. Engert wrote:
> Today is the day to announce the nominations. But I am having
> problems getting in touch with our co-chair, Hartmut. The
> co-chairs have to agree on the nominations, and count the votes.
>
> I have not heard from him since March. I have a note into
> 3 contacts and the secretaries at rzg.mpg.de to see if
> they know anything. (They may not see the note till tomorrow.)
>
> Has anyone heard anything?
>
> (It could just be August is vacation time for many of us, and
> in the future we should consider moving back the elections
> till a month or two.)
>

Doug,

sorry for the delay, I was in holidays without access to my mail, but now I am 
back. I have now followed the last weeks of the mailing list and it seems to me 
that there are only three nominations:

Kim Kimball
Jeffrey Hutzelman
Mike Meffie

where Kim still hasn't replied to the question if he would accept his nomination.

So now we either could follow strictly Simon Wilkinson's proposal and start the 
voting with two candidates or we could do it less strictly and wait for an 
answer of Kim before starting the voting.

What do you prefer, Doug? I am open for both ways.

Hartmut


>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [AFS3-std] Call for nomination for the position of
> AFS3-standardization co-chair
> Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 11:26:34 -0500
> From: Douglas E. Engert <deengert@anl.gov>
> To: afs3-standardization@openafs.org <afs3-standardization@openafs.org>
> CC: Hartmut Reuter <reuter@rzg.mpg.de>, "Douglas E. Engert"
> <deengert@anl.gov>
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wilkinson-afs3-standardisation-00.txt
>
> defines our election procedures to elect a co-chair. It is my position
> that is up for election, as I have the one year term. Hartmut Reuter
> is the other co-chair with the 2 year term, due to expire next year.
>
> Schedule:
> Nominations open 8/2 - 8/16
> Announcement of nominations 8/17
> Voting 8-17 - 8/31
> Election results 9/7
>
> Please read section 2.2.2 as to who can be nominated, and who can vote.
>
> Send nominations to Hartmut and myself as the vote takers, and we can
> contact the potential nominees to make sure they are willing to serve.
>
> As Jeff points out:
>> The subscriber list is not public; however, any subscriber can obtain a
>> copy by filling in his username and password near the bottom of the page
>> at https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization and
>> selecting "Visit Subscriber List". Of course, that's as of today. To
>> build a voter list, you also need to know that there have been no new
>> subscribers and no one has unsubscribed since April 25, before the start
>> of the eligibility period.
>
> (You can also get your password sent to you with the "Edit Options")
>


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hartmut Reuter                  e-mail 		reuter@rzg.mpg.de
			   	phone 		 +49-89-3299-1328
			   	fax   		 +49-89-3299-1301
RZG (Rechenzentrum Garching)   	web    http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~hwr
Computing Center of the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (MPG) and the
Institut fuer Plasmaphysik (IPP)
-----------------------------------------------------------------

From deengert@anl.gov  Thu Aug 18 15:18:24 2011
From: deengert@anl.gov (Douglas E. Engert)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 09:18:24 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization co-chair
Message-ID: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov>

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wilkinson-afs3-standardisation-00.txt

defines our election procedures to elect a co-chair for a 2 year term
starting October 1. In the option of the co-chairs we have two candidates:

Jeffrey Hutzelman
Mike Meffie

Jeff was nominated by Doug Engert and seconded by Matt W. Benjamin.
Mike was nominated by Andrew Deason and seconded by Matt Benjamin.


I am revising the schedule so voting starts today, and and
on September 1.

Schedule:
   Nominations open            8/2 - 8/16
   Announcement of nominations 8/18         * revised
   Voting                      8-18 - 9/1   * revised
   Election results            9/7

Please read section 2.2.2 as to who can vote.

Send votes to Hartmut and myself as the vote takers, *NOT* to the list.
Please use the subject of this email for voting, you can
reply to it, but *NOT* to the full list.




-- 

  Douglas E. Engert  <DEEngert@anl.gov>
  Argonne National Laboratory
  9700 South Cass Avenue
  Argonne, Illinois  60439
  (630) 252-5444
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
AFS3-standardization@openafs.org
http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization



From simon@sxw.org.uk  Thu Aug 18 15:30:02 2011
From: simon@sxw.org.uk (Simon Wilkinson)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 15:30:02 +0100
Subject: [AFS3-std] Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization co-chair
In-Reply-To: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov>
References: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov>
Message-ID: <9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk>

As an elector, it would help me in casting my vote if the candidates =
would be prepared to say something on the list about their vision for =
the standardisation process, what time they are prepared to devote to =
the job, and how they think we can best move things forwards.

Thanks,

Simon.


From dboyes@sinenomine.net  Thu Aug 18 18:20:24 2011
From: dboyes@sinenomine.net (David Boyes)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:20:24 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk>
References: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov>
 <9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk>
Message-ID: <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72D3@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>

> As an elector, it would help me in casting my vote if the candidates woul=
d be
> prepared to say something on the list about their vision for the
> standardisation process, what time they are prepared to devote to the job=
,
> and how they think we can best move things forwards.

While an excellent idea, it's not in the process right now. Since we have a=
lready started the voting, shouldn't we postpone introducing this until nex=
t time (and put this in the charter doc)?

-- db


From jaltman@secure-endpoints.com  Thu Aug 18 18:28:01 2011
From: jaltman@secure-endpoints.com (Jeffrey Altman)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 13:28:01 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization co-chair
In-Reply-To: <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72D3@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
References: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov> <9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk> <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72D3@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
Message-ID: <4E4D4BA1.8000809@secure-endpoints.com>

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig8FEAB52BF40AA5AACDC0015E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 8/18/2011 1:20 PM, David Boyes wrote:
>> As an elector, it would help me in casting my vote if the candidates w=
ould be
>> prepared to say something on the list about their vision for the
>> standardisation process, what time they are prepared to devote to the =
job,
>> and how they think we can best move things forwards.
>=20
> While an excellent idea, it's not in the process right now. Since we ha=
ve already started the voting, shouldn't we postpone introducing this unt=
il next time (and put this in the charter doc)?
>=20
> -- db

I see no reason why people who are running for an office should feel it
within their own powers to communicate with those they are intending to
serve.

A failure to respond to a request from the community is an indication to
me that I shouldn't vote for the unresponsive nominee.  It has nothing
to do with what is or is not required by the process.

Jeffrey Altman


--------------enig8FEAB52BF40AA5AACDC0015E
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOTUukAAoJENxm1CNJffh45ngH/3X9SN15SrE6MsBoO2ogdT6x
OFHIdXFtOIAC2rHsea1BYBbOfr6e7j//sTvjoTwoQXJDTOa6od2qHy3lh8MI2n/P
uaUf/WtsgP9Ad5Hx73oNwSzIUG6IL68j3G/9x1tRUbWgktBUGNo0DKJhvMDB7ZGr
F0aQqAyNV8v9gEN8S4i3xjBl1Khk0sJ5ECBZxryUXEsXe/MreVHhntKV7kAe19BW
fnjOh0noa1jA1VJYXTT29YrgPBc2lfjM5dNXHmaVefWul3Xi7XY3HSaJvDEQQ1WK
FWYIjmlfd1qXjybae1duFODOjQb2Cnr8jvsHBgRhB0xjTXiIrNu2xYYC2swd/yw=
=3+Iy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig8FEAB52BF40AA5AACDC0015E--


From dboyes@sinenomine.net  Thu Aug 18 18:38:48 2011
From: dboyes@sinenomine.net (David Boyes)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:38:48 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <4E4D4BA1.8000809@secure-endpoints.com>
References: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov>
 <9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72D3@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <4E4D4BA1.8000809@secure-endpoints.com>
Message-ID: <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72EF@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
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==

From adeason@sinenomine.net  Thu Aug 18 18:49:03 2011
From: adeason@sinenomine.net (Andrew Deason)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 13:49:03 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization co-chair
References: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov>
 <9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72D3@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <4E4D4BA1.8000809@secure-endpoints.com>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72EF@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
Message-ID: <20110818134903.a314437f.adeason@sinenomine.net>

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:38:48 -0500
David Boyes <dboyes@sinenomine.net> wrote:

> > A failure to respond to a request from the community is an
> > indication to me that I shouldn't vote for the unresponsive nominee.
> > It has nothing to do with what is or is not required by the process.
> 
> I disagree. We're changing the rules mid-stream. 
> 
> Right now, there is no requirement for anyone to provide a statement.
> If someone does, then good for them, but we shouldn't penalize people
> for not making one if it isn't required by the process.

The only "penalty" is that Jeff won't vote for them; nowhere do I see
that Jeff is suggesting that such candidates would be disqualified or
anything like that. Jeff is just expressing a desire as a voter, as far
as I can read. It seems good that voters express such opinions, so
candidates know what the voters are specifically looking for, if
anything.

I don't envision myself caring about position statements, but if Jeff
does, then... good for him.

-- 
Andrew Deason
adeason@sinenomine.net


From dboyes@sinenomine.net  Thu Aug 18 18:53:43 2011
From: dboyes@sinenomine.net (David Boyes)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:53:43 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <20110818134903.a314437f.adeason@sinenomine.net>
References: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov>
 <9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72D3@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <4E4D4BA1.8000809@secure-endpoints.com>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72EF@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <20110818134903.a314437f.adeason@sinenomine.net>
Message-ID: <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E7304@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>

> The only "penalty" is that Jeff won't vote for them; nowhere do I see tha=
t
> Jeff is suggesting that such candidates would be disqualified or anything=
 like
> that. Jeff is just expressing a desire as a voter, as far as I can read.

Which prima facie gives the people who do supply a statement an advantage i=
n that at least one voter will not vote for a candidate that does not suppl=
y a statement.=20

>  It seems
> good that voters express such opinions, so candidates know what the voter=
s
> are specifically looking for, if anything.

Agreed. But then all candidates should supply them.=20
=20
> I don't envision myself caring about position statements, but if Jeff doe=
s,
> then... good for him.

I would like them too. But I want them from all candidates so that I'm comp=
aring apples to apples, and that every candidate has an equal probability o=
f receiving votes from all the electors.=20


From rra@stanford.edu  Thu Aug 18 18:57:07 2011
From: rra@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 10:57:07 -0700
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization co-chair
In-Reply-To: <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E7304@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 (David Boyes's message of "Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:53:43 -0500")
References: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov>
 <9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72D3@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <4E4D4BA1.8000809@secure-endpoints.com>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72EF@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <20110818134903.a314437f.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E7304@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
Message-ID: <87aab6bo24.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>

David Boyes <dboyes@sinenomine.net> writes:

> I would like them too. But I want them from all candidates so that I'm
> comparing apples to apples, and that every candidate has an equal
> probability of receiving votes from all the electors.

You are free to reflect that desire in the way that you vote, in the same
way that others are free to reflect their desires for statements in the
way that they vote.  The rules, so far as I know, don't put any
restrictions on what factors influence the votes of the people who are
eligible to vote.

I suspect we've already exerted more effort arguing about this than it
really warranted.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

From adeason@sinenomine.net  Thu Aug 18 19:02:23 2011
From: adeason@sinenomine.net (Andrew Deason)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:02:23 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization co-chair
References: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov>
 <9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72D3@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <4E4D4BA1.8000809@secure-endpoints.com>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72EF@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <20110818134903.a314437f.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E7304@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
Message-ID: <20110818140223.c5382fd3.adeason@sinenomine.net>

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:53:43 -0500
David Boyes <dboyes@sinenomine.net> wrote:

> > I don't envision myself caring about position statements, but if
> > Jeff does, then... good for him.
> 
> I would like them too. But I want them from all candidates so that I'm
> comparing apples to apples, and that every candidate has an equal
> probability of receiving votes from all the electors. 

I'm not sure what you are suggesting? I think the only request was that
everyone does send such a statement. If they don't send one... nothing
happens.

I'm not sure if you are suggesting that such statements are _required_
(those that don't send one are disqualified), or that nominees _cannot_
send such statements. Both of those sound like rule changes to me moreso
than the original requests, but perhaps I am drastically misreading you.
If this is just your expression of a voter opinion, then... okay.

-- 
Andrew Deason
adeason@sinenomine.net


From deengert@anl.gov  Thu Aug 18 19:12:13 2011
From: deengert@anl.gov (Douglas E. Engert)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 13:12:13 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <87aab6bo24.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
References: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov>	<9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk>	<F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72D3@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>	<4E4D4BA1.8000809@secure-endpoints.com>	<F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72EF@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>	<20110818134903.a314437f.adeason@sinenomine.net>	<F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E7304@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com> <87aab6bo24.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <4E4D55FD.8050102@anl.gov>

As a co-chair, I see no problem with candidates making statements.


On 8/18/2011 12:57 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> David Boyes<dboyes@sinenomine.net>  writes:
>
>> I would like them too. But I want them from all candidates so that I'm
>> comparing apples to apples, and that every candidate has an equal
>> probability of receiving votes from all the electors.
>
> You are free to reflect that desire in the way that you vote, in the same
> way that others are free to reflect their desires for statements in the
> way that they vote.  The rules, so far as I know, don't put any
> restrictions on what factors influence the votes of the people who are
> eligible to vote.
>
> I suspect we've already exerted more effort arguing about this than it
> really warranted.
>

-- 

  Douglas E. Engert  <DEEngert@anl.gov>
  Argonne National Laboratory
  9700 South Cass Avenue
  Argonne, Illinois  60439
  (630) 252-5444

From dboyes@sinenomine.net  Thu Aug 18 19:15:35 2011
From: dboyes@sinenomine.net (David Boyes)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 13:15:35 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <20110818140223.c5382fd3.adeason@sinenomine.net>
References: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov>
 <9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72D3@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <4E4D4BA1.8000809@secure-endpoints.com>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72EF@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <20110818134903.a314437f.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E7304@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <20110818140223.c5382fd3.adeason@sinenomine.net>
Message-ID: <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E7318@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>

> I'm not sure what you are suggesting?

I am suggesting that in the future, the process be changed to require a sta=
tement like the one Simon requested from all candidates. I am also suggesti=
ng that while it would be nice to have that for this election voluntarily, =
not having it should not be a valid basis for rejecting a candidate for the=
 current election, since the request occurred after the official start of t=
he voting period.=20

I don't have any problem with someone providing a statement. I do have a pr=
oblem with people stating that they will reject out of hand a candidate tha=
t does not provide one if the request was not present at the start of votin=
g.=20

> I'm not sure if you are suggesting that such statements are _required_
> (those that don't send one are disqualified), or that nominees _cannot_ s=
end
> such statements. Both of those sound like rule changes to me moreso than
> the original requests, but perhaps I am drastically misreading you.

See above. I would like to see evidence that a candidate has thought about =
the long-term process and what they intend to do as chair.=20


From mmeffie@sinenomine.net  Thu Aug 18 19:36:59 2011
From: mmeffie@sinenomine.net (Michael Meffie)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:36:59 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization co-chair
In-Reply-To: <9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk>
References: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov> <9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk>
Message-ID: <4E4D5BCB.9070604@sinenomine.net>

Simon Wilkinson wrote:

> As an elector, it would help me in casting my vote if the candidates
> would be prepared to say something on the list about their vision for
> the standardisation process, what time they are prepared to devote to
> the job, and how they think we can best move things forwards.

I agree it is a reasonable request, Simon.

If I had the opporunity to co-chair the group, firstly I would do my
best to provide to the group regular, periodic updates of the work in
progress, the status of work in progress, and public and private
reminders as needed. I would like to include timelines which should show
where we stand on documents to ensure we are moving forward in a timely
fashion.

I have participated in industry-standard forums in the past, although
not related to IETF, and understand the issues of fairness and
cooperation which is required to build a consensus.

In terms of time, I understand this position will require some time per
work week and would be able to dedicate time each week to facilitate the
standardization process.

Mike --

From gary.buhrmaster@gmail.com  Fri Aug 19 07:54:44 2011
From: gary.buhrmaster@gmail.com (Gary Buhrmaster)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 23:54:44 -0700
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: Voting for the position of AFS3-standardization co-chair
In-Reply-To: <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E7318@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
References: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov>
 <9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72D3@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <4E4D4BA1.8000809@secure-endpoints.com>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72EF@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <20110818134903.a314437f.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E7304@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <20110818140223.c5382fd3.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E7318@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
Message-ID: <CAMfXtQxU93c-Fc+t-fJN80ZiKfWMJ9zj2tKcE8hdoeMn9_eSDA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 11:15, David Boyes <dboyes@sinenomine.net> wrote:
..
> I am suggesting that in the future, the process be changed to require a statement like the one Simon requested from all candidates.

In the more formal elections I am familiar with, candidates
have the option of offering a statement or to choose to
provide none at all.  I think that is the appropriate way
forward (and the voters will make of those choices by
the candidates what they will, as it should be).

One alternative might be a (built-in) hold between
the candidates being announced and voting beginning
to allow the candidates to state their positions on list.
Another might be that the chairs ask that as part
of the acceptance of the nomination the potential
candidate is offered an opportunity to provide a
statement that the chair would include in the
formal "election has started" email.

But that would be for the next election.  This election
is already in progress.

From dboyes@sinenomine.net  Fri Aug 19 08:28:58 2011
From: dboyes@sinenomine.net (David Boyes)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 02:28:58 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: Voting for the position of AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <CAMfXtQxU93c-Fc+t-fJN80ZiKfWMJ9zj2tKcE8hdoeMn9_eSDA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov>
 <9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72D3@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <4E4D4BA1.8000809@secure-endpoints.com>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72EF@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <20110818134903.a314437f.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E7304@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <20110818140223.c5382fd3.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E7318@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <CAMfXtQxU93c-Fc+t-fJN80ZiKfWMJ9zj2tKcE8hdoeMn9_eSDA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <35BBE9DA-E253-4A01-A02A-B437E3EE6311@sinenomine.net>

> One alternative might be a (built-in) hold between
> the candidates being announced and voting beginning
> to allow the candidates to state their positions on list.
> Another might be that the chairs ask that as part
> of the acceptance of the nomination the potential
> candidate is offered an opportunity to provide a
> statement that the chair would include in the
> formal "election has started" email.

Either of these options seem reasonable for next time. I do still think tha=
t if we use them, we should officially add them to the process.=

From adeason@sinenomine.net  Fri Aug 26 23:29:32 2011
From: adeason@sinenomine.net (Andrew Deason)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 17:29:32 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] New version of the 64-bit time I-D (-03)
Message-ID: <20110826172932.c2ec883f.adeason@sinenomine.net>

draft-deason-afs3-type-time-03 has been posted and is available at

<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-deason-afs3-type-time/>

This changes the epoch of the absolute time types to the Unix epoch, and
changes the names to include '64' in them. Some discussion about
differing time granularities and pre-UTC dates has been added.

There are a lot of changes between -02 and -03, most of which are just
to accommodate the changes in epoch and type names, and other minor
stuff like that. While I appreciate feedback on anything in the
document, sections 5 (Resolution Limitations) and 6 (Times Before UTC)
are completely new, and contain more substantive new text than any other
changes. So, if you don't want to read the whole thing again, I'd urge
you to at least read those two sections.

-- 
Andrew Deason
adeason@sinenomine.net


From deengert@anl.gov  Mon Aug 29 14:24:53 2011
From: deengert@anl.gov (Douglas E. Engert)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 08:24:53 -0500
Subject: Fwd: [AFS3-std] Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
Message-ID: <4E5B9325.9020507@anl.gov>

This is a reminder, your votes must be in by the end of Thursday 9/1.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [AFS3-std] Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization co-chair
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 09:18:24 -0500
From: Douglas E. Engert <deengert@anl.gov>
To: afs3-standardization@openafs.org <afs3-standardization@openafs.org>
CC: Hartmut Reuter <reuter@rzg.mpg.de>,	"Douglas E. Engert" <deengert@anl.gov>

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wilkinson-afs3-standardisation-00.txt

defines our election procedures to elect a co-chair for a 2 year term
starting October 1. In the option of the co-chairs we have two candidates:

Jeffrey Hutzelman
Mike Meffie

Jeff was nominated by Doug Engert and seconded by Matt W. Benjamin.
Mike was nominated by Andrew Deason and seconded by Matt Benjamin.


I am revising the schedule so voting starts today, and and
on September 1.

Schedule:
   Nominations open            8/2 - 8/16
   Announcement of nominations 8/18         * revised
   Voting                      8-18 - 9/1   * revised
   Election results            9/7

Please read section 2.2.2 as to who can vote.

Send votes to Hartmut and myself as the vote takers, *NOT* to the list.
Please use the subject of this email for voting, you can
reply to it, but *NOT* to the full list.




-- 

  Douglas E. Engert  <DEEngert@anl.gov>
  Argonne National Laboratory
  9700 South Cass Avenue
  Argonne, Illinois  60439
  (630) 252-5444
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
AFS3-standardization@openafs.org
http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization


_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
AFS3-standardization@openafs.org
http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization



From deengert@anl.gov  Wed Aug 31 21:21:44 2011
From: deengert@anl.gov (Douglas E. Engert)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:21:44 -0500
Subject: Fwd: [AFS3-std] Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
Message-ID: <4E5E97D8.3060204@anl.gov>

This is a reminder, you have only one more day to vote. Votes
must be received by Thu, 01 Sep 2011 23:59:59 -0500 (CDT)

Last year 21 people voted, so far we have received only 10 votes.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [AFS3-std] Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization co-chair
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 09:18:24 -0500
From: Douglas E. Engert <deengert@anl.gov>
To: afs3-standardization@openafs.org <afs3-standardization@openafs.org>
CC: Hartmut Reuter <reuter@rzg.mpg.de>,	"Douglas E. Engert" <deengert@anl.gov>

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wilkinson-afs3-standardisation-00.txt

defines our election procedures to elect a co-chair for a 2 year term
starting October 1. In the option of the co-chairs we have two candidates:

Jeffrey Hutzelman
Mike Meffie

Jeff was nominated by Doug Engert and seconded by Matt W. Benjamin.
Mike was nominated by Andrew Deason and seconded by Matt Benjamin.


I am revising the schedule so voting starts today, and and
on September 1.

Schedule:
   Nominations open            8/2 - 8/16
   Announcement of nominations 8/18         * revised
   Voting                      8-18 - 9/1   * revised
   Election results            9/7

Please read section 2.2.2 as to who can vote.

Send votes to Hartmut and myself as the vote takers, *NOT* to the list.
Please use the subject of this email for voting, you can
reply to it, but *NOT* to the full list.




-- 

  Douglas E. Engert  <DEEngert@anl.gov>
  Argonne National Laboratory
  9700 South Cass Avenue
  Argonne, Illinois  60439
  (630) 252-5444
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
AFS3-standardization@openafs.org
http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization


_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
AFS3-standardization@openafs.org
http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization


_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
AFS3-standardization@openafs.org
http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization



From tkeiser@sinenomine.net  Mon Aug  1 00:53:40 2011
From: tkeiser@sinenomine.net (Tom Keiser)
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2011 19:53:40 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: XDR extensible union type
In-Reply-To: <5D0108C15137EC449A517DD8454DE71503041C69F4@34093-MBX-C15.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
References: <AcxG4ZFuaYCU/LENS+ysCykoj1AgzgAXdVgL>
 <5D0108C15137EC449A517DD8454DE71503041C69F4@34093-MBX-C15.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
Message-ID: <CAK3rXuCoLKEd+bScNF6uCVVa-FAirHQH_rR_hcyd840mRnhG-g@mail.gmail.com>

--0015174483e85c0ec004a9663966
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I pushed draft-keiser-afs3-xdr-union-03 (incorporating Derrick's grammatical
corrections) to the IETF last week.  Comments are hereby solicited.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-keiser-afs3-xdr-union-03

Cheers,

-Tom
On Jul 20, 2011 8:46 PM, "Tom Keiser" <tkeiser@sinenomine.net> wrote:
> Hi Derrick,
>
> Thanks very much for the review; I'll incorporate those edits.
>
> I'd like to publish -03 on Tuesday. If any interested party can find time
to send comments by Monday, it would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Tom
>
> Sent from my phone; please excuse any typographic or grammatical errors.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Derrick Brashear [shadow@gmail.com]
> Received: Wednesday, 20 Jul 2011, 9:33am
> To: Tom Keiser [tkeiser@sinenomine.net]
> Subject: Re: [AFS3-std] Re: XDR extensible union type
>
> i lie
>
> "1. Lookup the discriminant"
>
> I believe that should be, as an operation, "look up"
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Derrick Brashear <shadow@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> 6. AFS Assign Numbers Registrar Considerations
>>
>> "Assigned"
>>
>> the actual content is fine and i see no issues.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Tom Keiser <tkeiser@sinenomine.net>
wrote:
>>> On Jun 20, 2011 2:41 PM, "Tom Keiser" <tkeiser@sinenomine.net> wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I pushed a new revision of draft-keiser-afs3-xdr-union:
>>>>
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-keiser-afs3-xdr-union-02
>>>>
>>>> This revision incorporates the following two changes:
>>>>
>>>> * modify section on error handling (3.4.1) to make length mismatches a
>>>> fatal error
>>>> * add a "use case" section (1.1) to discuss trade-offs associated with
>>>> using this type
>>>>
>>>> Any comments are welcome.
>>>>
>>>> -Tom
>>>
>>> This is a second call for review of draft-keiser-afs3-xdr-union-02; all
>>> comments are welcome.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> -Tom
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Derrick
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Derrick

--0015174483e85c0ec004a9663966
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p>I pushed draft-keiser-afs3-xdr-union-03 (incorporating Derrick&#39;s gra=
mmatical corrections) to the IETF last week.=A0 Comments are hereby solicit=
ed.</p>
<p><a href=3D"http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-keiser-afs3-xdr-union-03">ht=
tp://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-keiser-afs3-xdr-union-03</a></p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
<p>-Tom</p>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Jul 20, 2011 8:46 PM, &quot;Tom Keiser&quot; =
&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:tkeiser@sinenomine.net">tkeiser@sinenomine.net</a>&gt=
; wrote:<br type=3D"attribution">&gt; Hi Derrick,<br>&gt; <br>&gt; Thanks v=
ery much for the review; I&#39;ll incorporate those edits.<br>
&gt; <br>&gt; I&#39;d like to publish -03 on Tuesday. If any interested par=
ty can find time to send comments by Monday, it would be greatly appreciate=
d.<br>&gt; <br>&gt; Cheers,<br>&gt; <br>&gt; -Tom<br>&gt; <br>&gt; Sent fro=
m my phone; please excuse any typographic or grammatical errors.<br>
&gt; <br>&gt; -----Original Message-----<br>&gt; From: Derrick Brashear [<a=
 href=3D"mailto:shadow@gmail.com">shadow@gmail.com</a>]<br>&gt; Received: W=
ednesday, 20 Jul 2011, 9:33am<br>&gt; To: Tom Keiser [<a href=3D"mailto:tke=
iser@sinenomine.net">tkeiser@sinenomine.net</a>]<br>
&gt; Subject: Re: [AFS3-std] Re: XDR extensible union type<br>&gt; <br>&gt;=
 i lie<br>&gt; <br>&gt; &quot;1.  Lookup the discriminant&quot;<br>&gt; <br=
>&gt; I believe that should be, as an operation, &quot;look up&quot;<br>
&gt; <br>&gt; <br>&gt; On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Derrick Brashear &l=
t;<a href=3D"mailto:shadow@gmail.com">shadow@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>&g=
t;&gt; 6.  AFS Assign Numbers Registrar Considerations<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&=
gt; &quot;Assigned&quot;<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt; the actual content is fine and i see no issues.<br>&gt=
;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt; On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Tom Keiser &lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:tkeiser@sinenomine.net">tkeiser@sinenomine.net</a>&gt; wrote:<br=
>
&gt;&gt;&gt; On Jun 20, 2011 2:41 PM, &quot;Tom Keiser&quot; &lt;<a href=3D=
"mailto:tkeiser@sinenomine.net">tkeiser@sinenomine.net</a>&gt; wrote:<br>&g=
t;&gt;&gt;&gt; Hi all,<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; I pushed a n=
ew revision of draft-keiser-afs3-xdr-union:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"http://tools.ietf.org/html/=
draft-keiser-afs3-xdr-union-02">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-keiser-afs=
3-xdr-union-02</a><br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; This revision in=
corporates the following two changes:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; * modify section on error handling (3.=
4.1) to make length mismatches a<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; fatal error<br>&gt;&gt=
;&gt;&gt; * add a &quot;use case&quot; section (1.1) to discuss trade-offs =
associated with<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; using this type<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; An=
y comments are welcome.<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; -Tom<br>&gt=
;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt; This is a second call for review of  draft-keiser=
-afs3-xdr-union-02; all<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; comments are welcome.<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt; Cheers,<=
br>&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt; -Tom<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;<br=
>&gt;&gt; --<br>&gt;&gt; Derrick<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt; <br>&gt; <br>&gt; <br>
&gt; --<br>&gt; Derrick<br></div>

--0015174483e85c0ec004a9663966--

From simon@sxw.org.uk  Mon Aug  1 18:07:35 2011
From: simon@sxw.org.uk (Simon Wilkinson)
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 18:07:35 +0100
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org> <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu> <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk> <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net> <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>

Given how much of what we want to do depends on defining a new time type, it=
 would be good to keep up the momentum with this draft.

Would those with problems with the current draft be prepared to suggest new w=
ording for:

a) the epoch value
b) the granularity

that we could use as a basis for further discussion? It would also be wonder=
ful if everyone with an interest in this topic could participate in that dis=
cussion, rather than waiting for another last call to raise objections.

Thanks,

Simon=

From rra@stanford.edu  Mon Aug  1 18:13:57 2011
From: rra@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 10:13:57 -0700
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk> (Simon
 Wilkinson's message of "Mon, 1 Aug 2011 18:07:35 +0100")
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>
Message-ID: <87wrex836y.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>

Simon Wilkinson <simon@sxw.org.uk> writes:

> Would those with problems with the current draft be prepared to suggest
> new wording for:

> a) the epoch value
> b) the granularity

> that we could use as a basis for further discussion? It would also be
> wonderful if everyone with an interest in this topic could participate
> in that discussion, rather than waiting for another last call to raise
> objections.

As nice as it would be to be able to represent old timestamps in the file
system, we've never been able to before (at least consistently), and I
think the simplicity benefits for compatibility with current code bases of
sticking with the POSIX epoch are substantial.

I don't have an opinion on the granularity.  For me, the benefits of
matching NFS and the POSIX timestamp granularity is fairly evenly balanced
against the drawbacks of increasing the size of all of our protocol
packets.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

From matt@linuxbox.com  Mon Aug  1 18:21:47 2011
From: matt@linuxbox.com (Matt W. Benjamin)
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 13:21:47 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on
 draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <87wrex836y.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <159746358.62.1312219307195.JavaMail.root@thunderbeast.private.linuxbox.com>

Hi,

a) with Russ
b) Intuitively I would have voted and would vote for the more NFS, POSIX flavor of timestamp granularity.  In prior discussion, that was not the consensus.

Matt

----- "Russ Allbery" <rra@stanford.edu> wrote:

> Simon Wilkinson <simon@sxw.org.uk> writes:
> 
> > Would those with problems with the current draft be prepared to
> suggest
> > new wording for:
> 
> > a) the epoch value
> > b) the granularity

> 
> As nice as it would be to be able to represent old timestamps in the
> file
> system, we've never been able to before (at least consistently), and
> I
> think the simplicity benefits for compatibility with current code
> bases of
> sticking with the POSIX epoch are substantial.
> 
> I don't have an opinion on the granularity.  For me, the benefits of
> matching NFS and the POSIX timestamp granularity is fairly evenly
> balanced
> against the drawbacks of increasing the size of all of our protocol
> packets.
>

-- 

Matt Benjamin

The Linux Box
206 South Fifth Ave. Suite 150
Ann Arbor, MI  48104

http://linuxbox.com

tel. 734-761-4689
fax. 734-769-8938
cel. 734-216-5309

From adeason@sinenomine.net  Mon Aug  1 18:28:10 2011
From: adeason@sinenomine.net (Andrew Deason)
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 12:28:10 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>
Message-ID: <20110801122810.81b1889c.adeason@sinenomine.net>

On Mon, 1 Aug 2011 18:07:35 +0100
Simon Wilkinson <simon@sxw.org.uk> wrote:

> Given how much of what we want to do depends on defining a new time
> type, it would be good to keep up the momentum with this draft.
> 
> Would those with problems with the current draft be prepared to
> suggest new wording for:
> 
> a) the epoch value

I don't think I've heard any significant arguments for keeping the epoch
as it exists in the current draft. And since there are issues with the
current epoch value that Russ has detailed, it makes sense to me to
change it to the posix epoch. I was going to change it unless I heard
someone object; I'll propose some new text soon based on Russ'
suggestions unless someone else wants to.

> b) the granularity

This one I still have no idea on. I see reasons for both sides.

> that we could use as a basis for further discussion? It would also be
> wonderful if everyone with an interest in this topic could participate
> in that discussion, rather than waiting for another last call to raise
> objections.

Most people involved have a lot of deadlines to work with and balance.
Right now, the only "deadline" we are given for standards discussion is
the last call. If you want to ensure discussion before that point, give
another deadline.

-- 
Andrew Deason
adeason@sinenomine.net


From shadow@gmail.com  Mon Aug  1 18:32:46 2011
From: shadow@gmail.com (Derrick Brashear)
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 13:32:46 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <20110801122810.81b1889c.adeason@sinenomine.net>
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>
 <20110801122810.81b1889c.adeason@sinenomine.net>
Message-ID: <CAMHoRJg1C2sVXyETEyaKwP_T0GSLDLuO9_nB_n2YMEz6qWG55g@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> wrote:

>> b) the granularity
>
> This one I still have no idea on. I see reasons for both sides.

So is there a reason an extended union with the various stamp
granularities would be a nonstarter? In particular I'd suggest the
draft strongly discourage
sending a larger timestamp than actual information supports (e.g.
don't use bits to send precision you don't have, rather than
trailing-zero-padding a
larger than needed number)

-- 
Derrick

From jaltman@secure-endpoints.com  Mon Aug  1 18:39:35 2011
From: jaltman@secure-endpoints.com (Jeffrey Altman)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 13:39:35 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <87wrex836y.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>	<4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>	<D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>	<87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>	<87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk> <87wrex836y.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <4E36E4D7.9010308@secure-endpoints.com>

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig4A27C580FE23C3E7E55C905E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 8/1/2011 1:13 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> As nice as it would be to be able to represent old timestamps in the fi=
le
> system, we've never been able to before (at least consistently), and I
> think the simplicity benefits for compatibility with current code bases=
 of
> sticking with the POSIX epoch are substantial.
>
> I don't have an opinion on the granularity.  For me, the benefits of
> matching NFS and the POSIX timestamp granularity is fairly evenly balan=
ced
> against the drawbacks of increasing the size of all of our protocol
> packets.

I have a strong desire to ensure that everything that can be represented
in an NTFS file system can be represented in AFS.  I don't care if the
epoch is the same or if the granularity is better than 100ns or not.

I am concerned about the size of status structures given how frequently
they are sent and because the size of the status structure determines
how many FIDs can be specified in a single Bulk Status request.

It would be nice if we could have some form of compressed time
representation that only sent the required number of bits necessary to
represent the required granularity.

Jeffrey Altman


--------------enig4A27C580FE23C3E7E55C905E
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJONuTdAAoJENxm1CNJffh4/1EH/2edEyuNmABtPOma63yPvItC
dlmgGYHO5YnJyW7dsoPyE4+wtorPCPFpVIriwIyke7eXhBjDHYod0sE+PjMa00US
elGszsC+O8YFReJQkvCUo6K82sTNmjIDI95tFtTWPuPM4NDniN7HW2IhjqbIZOX1
pArwMylZD2BUk+GjPbpElgWqQoFhB96pHgmS4UK94brY9wGfjo/geMWgN/kLm5OP
pGtiAhj01mDrr5qKYe8l0fQm9EVd2BTB2TI7flshB5foFFx+86LadxQdyhUciDdg
W6NHvqbEbDPoHvOqsrHg4bvxYQnsXBkDGsnC2goeZ3B1pMKt466GHoUbBtEAXXU=
=EWEN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig4A27C580FE23C3E7E55C905E--


From rra@stanford.edu  Mon Aug  1 18:50:51 2011
From: rra@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 10:50:51 -0700
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <4E36E4D7.9010308@secure-endpoints.com> (Jeffrey Altman's message
 of "Mon, 01 Aug 2011 13:39:35 -0400")
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>
 <87wrex836y.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <4E36E4D7.9010308@secure-endpoints.com>
Message-ID: <87fwll81hg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>

Jeffrey Altman <jaltman@secure-endpoints.com> writes:

> I have a strong desire to ensure that everything that can be represented
> in an NTFS file system can be represented in AFS.

Does that include timestamps prior to 1970, just to check?

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

From adeason@sinenomine.net  Mon Aug  1 18:53:44 2011
From: adeason@sinenomine.net (Andrew Deason)
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 12:53:44 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>
 <20110801122810.81b1889c.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <CAMHoRJg1C2sVXyETEyaKwP_T0GSLDLuO9_nB_n2YMEz6qWG55g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20110801125344.e9e45873.adeason@sinenomine.net>

On Mon, 1 Aug 2011 13:32:46 -0400
Derrick Brashear <shadow@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> wrote:
> 
> >> b) the granularity
> >
> > This one I still have no idea on. I see reasons for both sides.
> 
> So is there a reason an extended union with the various stamp
> granularities would be a nonstarter? In particular I'd suggest the
> draft strongly discourage
> sending a larger timestamp than actual information supports (e.g.
> don't use bits to send precision you don't have, rather than
> trailing-zero-padding a
> larger than needed number)

Well, the objection to just having 64-bit seconds and 32-bit nanoseconds
is "space", and a union tag is an extra 32 bits... If we had a "100 NS
granularity" tag, then we'd have 100-ns granularity in 96 bits, whereas
now we could have 1-ns granularity in 96 bits. Unless there's some other
scheme you're thinking of that somehow makes this more efficient?

I had some kind of variable-length scheme that encoded the granularity
in the 'unused' bits of the value for coarser granularities, but I'm
pretty sure that only saved space for the *TimeRes types, and doesn't
really help for 'plain' times.

-- 
Andrew Deason
adeason@sinenomine.net


From jaltman@secure-endpoints.com  Mon Aug  1 19:01:25 2011
From: jaltman@secure-endpoints.com (Jeffrey Altman)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 14:01:25 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <87fwll81hg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>	<4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>	<D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>	<87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>	<87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>	<87wrex836y.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<4E36E4D7.9010308@secure-endpoints.com> <87fwll81hg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <4E36E9F5.9000502@secure-endpoints.com>

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig23F50A5B2A28DAF581F3533F
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 8/1/2011 1:50 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Jeffrey Altman <jaltman@secure-endpoints.com> writes:
>=20
>> I have a strong desire to ensure that everything that can be represent=
ed
>> in an NTFS file system can be represented in AFS.
>=20
> Does that include timestamps prior to 1970, just to check?
>=20

Yes.



--------------enig23F50A5B2A28DAF581F3533F
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJONun2AAoJENxm1CNJffh4mrIIAIEPpQF6ZniJKtOR3Go0RhOo
UJihNKxv52kCD9Jsulu+C19n5L0QkqfFqXUSJNtOqU0a7M0rypzhiyOmpdKiboiB
st2NhCi50BPkbVq68+GbhzHIZLNEs3aMnV8Xhhl76e9s+rmlXy7G/bY1pMxIWYAn
zY58jFCcgeeTHf06qcGsop1VwyQX4Vy/POnbs5+YybtOxTGIvi/awa2YFaqLZeyz
pUZe8TgpYR3XODPoc6ykc/SFoD4c+PpToHEXQFHZVWbpDpMIU9M4WmbZESRGObxX
5bqOusZgx7THzk5r5nTc8BWWmp5tnPvALz+MOlHTRvFje99rwQz/Cl+luWDY/ak=
=Tflf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig23F50A5B2A28DAF581F3533F--


From rra@stanford.edu  Mon Aug  1 19:13:50 2011
From: rra@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 11:13:50 -0700
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <4E36E9F5.9000502@secure-endpoints.com> (Jeffrey Altman's message
 of "Mon, 01 Aug 2011 14:01:25 -0400")
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>
 <87wrex836y.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <4E36E4D7.9010308@secure-endpoints.com>
 <87fwll81hg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <4E36E9F5.9000502@secure-endpoints.com>
Message-ID: <871ux580f5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>

Jeffrey Altman <jaltman@secure-endpoints.com> writes:
> On 8/1/2011 1:50 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Jeffrey Altman <jaltman@secure-endpoints.com> writes:

>>> I have a strong desire to ensure that everything that can be represented
>>> in an NTFS file system can be represented in AFS.

>> Does that include timestamps prior to 1970, just to check?

> Yes.

Okay, so you *do* care about what epoch is used, unless we use a time
definition that allows for negative offsets from the epoch.

Does Microsoft have documentation for how the Windows epoch deals with
Gregorian calendar conversions and leap seconds?

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

From shadow@gmail.com  Mon Aug  1 19:19:11 2011
From: shadow@gmail.com (Derrick Brashear)
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 14:19:11 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <20110801125344.e9e45873.adeason@sinenomine.net>
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>
 <20110801122810.81b1889c.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <CAMHoRJg1C2sVXyETEyaKwP_T0GSLDLuO9_nB_n2YMEz6qWG55g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110801125344.e9e45873.adeason@sinenomine.net>
Message-ID: <CAMHoRJj9qaQfY7hQfCCRVC7NWe1mt4DUJ58_WspqOTV1JLi+8Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Aug 2011 13:32:46 -0400
> Derrick Brashear <shadow@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> b) the granularity
>> >
>> > This one I still have no idea on. I see reasons for both sides.
>>
>> So is there a reason an extended union with the various stamp
>> granularities would be a nonstarter? In particular I'd suggest the
>> draft strongly discourage
>> sending a larger timestamp than actual information supports (e.g.
>> don't use bits to send precision you don't have, rather than
>> trailing-zero-padding a
>> larger than needed number)
>
> Well, the objection to just having 64-bit seconds and 32-bit nanoseconds
> is "space", and a union tag is an extra 32 bits... If we had a "100 NS
> granularity" tag, then we'd have 100-ns granularity in 96 bits, whereas
> now we could have 1-ns granularity in 96 bits. Unless there's some other
> scheme you're thinking of that somehow makes this more efficient?

for the worst case, it's worse. for the best case, it's better. but i
suppose it may not be worth it
given that the worst case will become more prevalent over time.

> I had some kind of variable-length scheme that encoded the granularity
> in the 'unused' bits of the value for coarser granularities, but I'm
> pretty sure that only saved space for the *TimeRes types, and doesn't
> really help for 'plain' times.

and those are going to be a majority, i think.


-- 
Derrick

From tkeiser@sinenomine.net  Mon Aug  1 21:16:44 2011
From: tkeiser@sinenomine.net (Tom Keiser)
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 16:16:44 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <20110801125344.e9e45873.adeason@sinenomine.net>
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>
 <20110801122810.81b1889c.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <CAMHoRJg1C2sVXyETEyaKwP_T0GSLDLuO9_nB_n2YMEz6qWG55g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110801125344.e9e45873.adeason@sinenomine.net>
Message-ID: <CAK3rXuCqN_GwuCupEM4O=A=Svh6itj-fGLM=WNN029ntiFvb1w@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Aug 2011 13:32:46 -0400
> Derrick Brashear <shadow@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> b) the granularity
>> >
>> > This one I still have no idea on. I see reasons for both sides.
>>
>> So is there a reason an extended union with the various stamp
>> granularities would be a nonstarter? In particular I'd suggest the
>> draft strongly discourage
>> sending a larger timestamp than actual information supports (e.g.
>> don't use bits to send precision you don't have, rather than
>> trailing-zero-padding a
>> larger than needed number)
>
> Well, the objection to just having 64-bit seconds and 32-bit nanoseconds
> is "space", and a union tag is an extra 32 bits... If we had a "100 NS
> granularity" tag, then we'd have 100-ns granularity in 96 bits, whereas
> now we could have 1-ns granularity in 96 bits. Unless there's some other
> scheme you're thinking of that somehow makes this more efficient?
>

This is why in Pittsburgh we proposed that overarching structures
(e.g., AFSFetchStatus, and AFSStoreStatus) should be wrapped in
ext-union, while proscribing the use of union/ext-union for individual
members of those structures.  As I suggested last Friday, we could
define two different AFSFetchStatus/AFSStoreStatus implied legs for
now: one with 64-bit time, and a second with 96-bit time (perhaps, we
would also want to define a third leg with 32-bit time--given that
we're likely to have implementations of the protocol long before
server backing stores can handle the increased resolution)...

-Tom

From deengert@anl.gov  Mon Aug  1 21:47:47 2011
From: deengert@anl.gov (Douglas E. Engert)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 15:47:47 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Election Procedure for AFS-3 Working Group Chairs
Message-ID: <4E3710F3.3000603@anl.gov>

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wilkinson-afs3-standardisation-00.txt

Says its time for an election, typically with nominations starting
August 1, for 14 days, voting for 14 days, and 7 days to count with
the new chair starting on October 1.

It is my position that is up for election, as I have the one year
term. Hartmut Reuter is the other co-chair with the 2 year term.

Please read section 2.2.2 as to who can be nominated, and who can vote.

(We will need a list of eligible voters, from the mailman-owner
for our list. Once we get that we can start the nomination process,
and keep within the guidelines and have a chair by October 1.)

-- 

  Douglas E. Engert  <DEEngert@anl.gov>
  Argonne National Laboratory
  9700 South Cass Avenue
  Argonne, Illinois  60439
  (630) 252-5444

From jaltman@secure-endpoints.com  Mon Aug  1 22:05:36 2011
From: jaltman@secure-endpoints.com (Jeffrey Altman)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 17:05:36 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <871ux580f5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>	<4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>	<D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>	<87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>	<87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>	<87wrex836y.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<4E36E4D7.9010308@secure-endpoints.com>	<87fwll81hg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<4E36E9F5.9000502@secure-endpoints.com> <871ux580f5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <4E371520.2050905@secure-endpoints.com>

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enigF4A4B8C5B5CC41684FB59F42
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 8/1/2011 2:13 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Okay, so you *do* care about what epoch is used, unless we use a time
> definition that allows for negative offsets from the epoch.

I am fine with negative offsets from epoch if that is what people want.

> Does Microsoft have documentation for how the Windows epoch deals with
> Gregorian calendar conversions and leap seconds?

There isn't anything that pops out at me from Google.

If you can provide me a list of boundary times to check I can construct
a test application that uses SYSTEMTIME to FILETIME conversions to test
the results of various time arithmetic operations.

typedef struct _SYSTEMTIME {
  WORD wYear;
  WORD wMonth;
  WORD wDayOfWeek;
  WORD wDay;
  WORD wHour;
  WORD wMinute;
  WORD wSecond;
  WORD wMilliseconds;
} SYSTEMTIME, *PSYSTEMTIME;



--------------enigF4A4B8C5B5CC41684FB59F42
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJONxUiAAoJENxm1CNJffh4mu4H/A7+rbmqi6FER4MuMi1/q+SY
lFwytYN63cqi9l0wcFnOohPlGYHF3NoKG8U71oZiTqLYdjG5mfi/BNQAU4Y+7aQ3
117nRk16TBN3UfdJo8dn/mapBOAlP9Cw9RF0Ac8z9f7416qZ/eHASAsyNiceOvwJ
FsiQT9P03z2F+5zEb5/LUn6OGPNVHCB1HVv6TfeUM952Ksd/cmNBgozKlf+rBCDa
iiunFEF/2sgHLlaT1iQgZ3TqgfulEJCRwnOSEaD6D+lVTZpCw7AT4UELa/JCNTJj
gQ++cQnQ8PFGchd0t0IJhaoqFaAQqT+UZNMNbOvMTo9RkowPHlGqLJy5AbRF91M=
=B2Sk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enigF4A4B8C5B5CC41684FB59F42--


From shadow@gmail.com  Mon Aug  1 22:07:45 2011
From: shadow@gmail.com (Derrick Brashear)
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 17:07:45 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <CAK3rXuCqN_GwuCupEM4O=A=Svh6itj-fGLM=WNN029ntiFvb1w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>
 <20110801122810.81b1889c.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <CAMHoRJg1C2sVXyETEyaKwP_T0GSLDLuO9_nB_n2YMEz6qWG55g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110801125344.e9e45873.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <CAK3rXuCqN_GwuCupEM4O=A=Svh6itj-fGLM=WNN029ntiFvb1w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMHoRJi-++RwV7KMvy+6fCxzUdvW7GS7LQXBappDoNw2-wNmzg@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Tom Keiser <tkeiser@sinenomine.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> wr=
ote:
>> On Mon, 1 Aug 2011 13:32:46 -0400
>> Derrick Brashear <shadow@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> =
wrote:
>>>
>>> >> b) the granularity
>>> >
>>> > This one I still have no idea on. I see reasons for both sides.
>>>
>>> So is there a reason an extended union with the various stamp
>>> granularities would be a nonstarter? In particular I'd suggest the
>>> draft strongly discourage
>>> sending a larger timestamp than actual information supports (e.g.
>>> don't use bits to send precision you don't have, rather than
>>> trailing-zero-padding a
>>> larger than needed number)
>>
>> Well, the objection to just having 64-bit seconds and 32-bit nanoseconds
>> is "space", and a union tag is an extra 32 bits... If we had a "100 NS
>> granularity" tag, then we'd have 100-ns granularity in 96 bits, whereas
>> now we could have 1-ns granularity in 96 bits. Unless there's some other
>> scheme you're thinking of that somehow makes this more efficient?
>>
>
> This is why in Pittsburgh we proposed that overarching structures
> (e.g., AFSFetchStatus, and AFSStoreStatus) should be wrapped in
> ext-union, while proscribing the use of union/ext-union for individual
> members of those structures. =A0As I suggested last Friday, we could
> define two different AFSFetchStatus/AFSStoreStatus implied legs for
> now: one with 64-bit time, and a second with 96-bit time (perhaps, we
> would also want to define a third leg with 32-bit time--given that
> we're likely to have implementations of the protocol long before
> server backing stores can handle the increased resolution)...

and this approach would be fine for this, at least for a long time in
the interim.

From rra@stanford.edu  Mon Aug  1 22:16:18 2011
From: rra@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 14:16:18 -0700
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <4E371520.2050905@secure-endpoints.com> (Jeffrey Altman's message
 of "Mon, 01 Aug 2011 17:05:36 -0400")
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>
 <87wrex836y.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <4E36E4D7.9010308@secure-endpoints.com>
 <87fwll81hg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <4E36E9F5.9000502@secure-endpoints.com>
 <871ux580f5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <4E371520.2050905@secure-endpoints.com>
Message-ID: <87livc6del.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>

Jeffrey Altman <jaltman@secure-endpoints.com> writes:

> If you can provide me a list of boundary times to check I can construct
> a test application that uses SYSTEMTIME to FILETIME conversions to test
> the results of various time arithmetic operations.

> typedef struct _SYSTEMTIME {
>   WORD wYear;
>   WORD wMonth;
>   WORD wDayOfWeek;
>   WORD wDay;
>   WORD wHour;
>   WORD wMinute;
>   WORD wSecond;
>   WORD wMilliseconds;
> } SYSTEMTIME, *PSYSTEMTIME;

Usually the interesting ones for Gregorian conversion of software written
in the US are around the date of UK transition from Julian to Gregorian in
September of 1752:

    September 1752
 Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
        1  2 14 15 16
 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

(gcal is one of the few programs I know that attempts to cope with this.)

My guess is that Windows is using a backwards-projection of UTC without
leap seconds and not attempting to worry about dates that theoretically
should be in Julian, so you'll get an offset of 10 or 11 days relative to
the actual historical time when converting from a timestamp to calendar
time.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

From jaltman@secure-endpoints.com  Mon Aug  1 22:20:06 2011
From: jaltman@secure-endpoints.com (Jeffrey Altman)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 17:20:06 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <87livc6del.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>	<4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>	<D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>	<87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>	<87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>	<87wrex836y.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<4E36E4D7.9010308@secure-endpoints.com>	<87fwll81hg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<4E36E9F5.9000502@secure-endpoints.com>	<871ux580f5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<4E371520.2050905@secure-endpoints.com> <87livc6del.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <4E371886.8010307@secure-endpoints.com>

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig2647EB98B812449AC7E31696
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 8/1/2011 5:16 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Jeffrey Altman <jaltman@secure-endpoints.com> writes:
>=20
>> If you can provide me a list of boundary times to check I can construc=
t
>> a test application that uses SYSTEMTIME to FILETIME conversions to tes=
t
>> the results of various time arithmetic operations.
>=20
>> typedef struct _SYSTEMTIME {
>>   WORD wYear;
>>   WORD wMonth;
>>   WORD wDayOfWeek;
>>   WORD wDay;
>>   WORD wHour;
>>   WORD wMinute;
>>   WORD wSecond;
>>   WORD wMilliseconds;
>> } SYSTEMTIME, *PSYSTEMTIME;
>=20
> Usually the interesting ones for Gregorian conversion of software writt=
en
> in the US are around the date of UK transition from Julian to Gregorian=
 in
> September of 1752:
>=20
>     September 1752
>  Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
>         1  2 14 15 16
>  17 18 19 20 21 22 23
>  24 25 26 27 28 29 30
>=20
> (gcal is one of the few programs I know that attempts to cope with this=
=2E)
>=20
> My guess is that Windows is using a backwards-projection of UTC without=

> leap seconds and not attempting to worry about dates that theoretically=

> should be in Julian, so you'll get an offset of 10 or 11 days relative =
to
> the actual historical time when converting from a timestamp to calendar=

> time.
>=20

Provide times for a few known leap seconds and I can test those as well.



--------------enig2647EB98B812449AC7E31696
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJONxiIAAoJENxm1CNJffh49/AH/1MZZLyAQ9mIiabhFyZnFHuv
FFjEX67+JHztWs7JmIZvz6vEFtrPggpRl2CFXC9kf5dT3eNckXMI3kMEaQRz+YUN
cUats8XTrifl8BABP1u9n6xK8DWd3v+YBgrMumCn5ckVUzi+4VaQIrFqBqCfsig2
i2KN9IXVDtyHE5i0pcOxo6lmKYlgN1aMWh8gOSPXep/iQ13YvTWXBqrGxiGjzTLt
rfz9AaySkkuVKbVGtRw/WIJn+P1J3MpfPnWWpEVHOfgFJp+1Gv0n5ILUYCpxxlV/
0AOalh7nl+T/bQDR9oAfDL1kxwRCUCuO1mZbD9XLv+mdcbZ7/muv4PLLkhF85qw=
=o4oS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig2647EB98B812449AC7E31696--


From rra@stanford.edu  Mon Aug  1 22:30:35 2011
From: rra@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 14:30:35 -0700
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <4E371886.8010307@secure-endpoints.com> (Jeffrey Altman's message
 of "Mon, 01 Aug 2011 17:20:06 -0400")
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk>
 <87wrex836y.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <4E36E4D7.9010308@secure-endpoints.com>
 <87fwll81hg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <4E36E9F5.9000502@secure-endpoints.com>
 <871ux580f5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <4E371520.2050905@secure-endpoints.com>
 <87livc6del.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <4E371886.8010307@secure-endpoints.com>
Message-ID: <87bow86cqs.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>

Jeffrey Altman <jaltman@secure-endpoints.com> writes:

> Provide times for a few known leap seconds and I can test those as well.

Leap seconds are always added as 23:60 on June 30th or December 31st.
There's a table at:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second

of all the leap seconds that have been added historically.  So:

    1972-06-30 23:59:59
    1972-06-30 23:59:60
    1972-07-01 00:00:00

for example.  One of the interesting questions is whether conversion of
the first and last calendar times above are, when represented as
timestamps, one second apart or two seconds apart.

Note that, in POSIX, they're one second apart, because POSIX time contains
no leap seconds by definition (which means that it's not really possible
to accurately represent those dates).

On UNIX systems, using mktime on those dates will generally convert as
follows:

    1972-06-30 23:59:59         78821999
    1972-06-30 23:59:60         78822000
    1972-07-01 00:00:00         78822000

There's not really a "right" answer here; we just need to say what the
answer is.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

From jhutz@cmu.edu  Tue Aug  2 00:17:16 2011
From: jhutz@cmu.edu (Jeffrey Hutzelman)
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 19:17:16 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: Election Procedure for AFS-3 Working Group Chairs
In-Reply-To: <4E3710F3.3000603@anl.gov>
References: <4E3710F3.3000603@anl.gov>
Message-ID: <1312240636.3168.25.camel@destiny.pc.cs.cmu.edu>

On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 15:47 -0500, Douglas E. Engert wrote:
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wilkinson-afs3-standardisation-00.txt
> 
> Says its time for an election, typically with nominations starting
> August 1, for 14 days, voting for 14 days, and 7 days to count with
> the new chair starting on October 1.
> 
> It is my position that is up for election, as I have the one year
> term. Hartmut Reuter is the other co-chair with the 2 year term.
> 
> Please read section 2.2.2 as to who can be nominated, and who can vote.
> 
> (We will need a list of eligible voters, from the mailman-owner
> for our list. Once we get that we can start the nomination process,
> and keep within the guidelines and have a chair by October 1.)

According to section 2.2.2, the list of eligible voters consists of
anyone who has posted or was subscribed during the period from June 1 to
July 1.  It's fairly easy to construct a list of who has posted by
consulting the list archives, which are publicly available at
https://lists.openafs.org/pipermail/afs3-standardization/

The subscriber list is not public; however, any subscriber can obtain a
copy by filling in his username and password near the bottom of the page
at https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization and
selecting "Visit Subscriber List".  Of course, that's as of today.  To
build a voter list, you also need to know that there have been no new
subscribers and no one has unsubscribed since April 25, before the start
of the eligibility period.

-- Jeff


From deengert@anl.gov  Tue Aug  2 17:26:34 2011
From: deengert@anl.gov (Douglas E. Engert)
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 11:26:34 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Call for nomination for the position of  AFS3-standardization co-chair
Message-ID: <4E38253A.6000001@anl.gov>

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wilkinson-afs3-standardisation-00.txt

defines our election procedures to elect a co-chair. It is my position
that is up for election, as I have the one year term. Hartmut Reuter
is the other co-chair with the 2 year term, due to expire next year.

Schedule:
   Nominations open            8/2 - 8/16
   Announcement of nominations 8/17
   Voting                      8-17 - 8/31
   Election results            9/7

Please read section 2.2.2 as to who can be nominated, and who can vote.

Send nominations to Hartmut and myself as the vote takers, and we can
contact the potential nominees to make sure they are willing to serve.

As Jeff points out:
 > The subscriber list is not public; however, any subscriber can obtain a
 > copy by filling in his username and password near the bottom of the page
 > at https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization and
 > selecting "Visit Subscriber List".  Of course, that's as of today.  To
 > build a voter list, you also need to know that there have been no new
 > subscribers and no one has unsubscribed since April 25, before the start
 > of the eligibility period.

(You can also get your password sent to you with the "Edit Options")

-- 

  Douglas E. Engert  <DEEngert@anl.gov>
  Argonne National Laboratory
  9700 South Cass Avenue
  Argonne, Illinois  60439
  (630) 252-5444

From deengert@anl.gov  Fri Aug  5 20:32:15 2011
From: deengert@anl.gov (Douglas E. Engert)
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 14:32:15 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Call for nomination for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <4E38253A.6000001@anl.gov>
References: <4E38253A.6000001@anl.gov>
Message-ID: <4E3C453F.5060805@anl.gov>

I am not running for re-election and so far we have receive only one
other nomination. See the schedule below.

On 8/2/2011 11:26 AM, Douglas E. Engert wrote:
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wilkinson-afs3-standardisation-00.txt
>
> defines our election procedures to elect a co-chair. It is my position
> that is up for election, as I have the one year term. Hartmut Reuter
> is the other co-chair with the 2 year term, due to expire next year.
>
> Schedule:
> Nominations open 8/2 - 8/16
> Announcement of nominations 8/17
> Voting 8-17 - 8/31
> Election results 9/7
>
> Please read section 2.2.2 as to who can be nominated, and who can vote.
>
> Send nominations to Hartmut and myself as the vote takers, and we can
> contact the potential nominees to make sure they are willing to serve.
>
> As Jeff points out:
>  > The subscriber list is not public; however, any subscriber can obtain a
>  > copy by filling in his username and password near the bottom of the page
>  > at https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization and
>  > selecting "Visit Subscriber List". Of course, that's as of today. To
>  > build a voter list, you also need to know that there have been no new
>  > subscribers and no one has unsubscribed since April 25, before the start
>  > of the eligibility period.
>
> (You can also get your password sent to you with the "Edit Options")
>

-- 

  Douglas E. Engert  <DEEngert@anl.gov>
  Argonne National Laboratory
  9700 South Cass Avenue
  Argonne, Illinois  60439
  (630) 252-5444

From adeason@sinenomine.net  Mon Aug  8 18:32:58 2011
From: adeason@sinenomine.net (Andrew Deason)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 12:32:58 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <20110808123258.59cc0539.adeason@sinenomine.net>

On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 18:06:25 -0700
Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> wrote:

> Or, hm, I suppose if you squint at it right, you can decide that
> "number of seconds" isn't just elapsed actual time, but includes the
> leap seconds that were inserted.  Which would also work for our
> phrasing.  Maybe we could just say that explicitly.  Something like:
> 
>     the number of seconds and nanoseconds since midnight or 0 hour
>     January 1, 1970 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), including any
>     leap seconds inserted into UTC.

It's very possible I am backwards on this, but shouldn't this be
"excluding any leap seconds"? That is, in our time representation,
there is a difference of 1 "second" (however we define "second") between
the times 31 Dec 2005 23:59:59 and 01 Jan 2006 00:00:00, even though
there was a leap second at 31 Dec 2005 23:59:60. That is, I thought we'd
be following UTC more than TAI.

And also, I did find another instance of this being mentioned in IETF
RFCs. RFC 4049 states in Section 2 (at the top of the second page):

    The integer value is the number of seconds, excluding leap seconds,
    after midnight UTC, January 1, 1970.  

Would that work for us?

-- 
Andrew Deason
adeason@sinenomine.net


From rra@stanford.edu  Mon Aug  8 18:50:11 2011
From: rra@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 10:50:11 -0700
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <20110808123258.59cc0539.adeason@sinenomine.net> (Andrew Deason's
 message of "Mon, 8 Aug 2011 12:32:58 -0500")
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110808123258.59cc0539.adeason@sinenomine.net>
Message-ID: <8762m7ztbg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>

Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> writes:
> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> wrote:

>> Or, hm, I suppose if you squint at it right, you can decide that
>> "number of seconds" isn't just elapsed actual time, but includes the
>> leap seconds that were inserted.  Which would also work for our
>> phrasing.  Maybe we could just say that explicitly.  Something like:
>> 
>>     the number of seconds and nanoseconds since midnight or 0 hour
>>     January 1, 1970 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), including any
>>     leap seconds inserted into UTC.

> It's very possible I am backwards on this, but shouldn't this be
> "excluding any leap seconds"?

Oh, yes, you're exactly right.  Thank you.

> That is, in our time representation, there is a difference of 1 "second"
> (however we define "second") between the times 31 Dec 2005 23:59:59 and
> 01 Jan 2006 00:00:00, even though there was a leap second at 31 Dec 2005
> 23:59:60. That is, I thought we'd be following UTC more than TAI.

Yes, correct.

> And also, I did find another instance of this being mentioned in IETF
> RFCs. RFC 4049 states in Section 2 (at the top of the second page):

>     The integer value is the number of seconds, excluding leap seconds,
>     after midnight UTC, January 1, 1970.  

> Would that work for us?

That sounds great to me.

We could take the same approach if we use the other epoch, although I
think we should be more wordy about it:

    The integer value is the number of seconds, excluding leap seconds,
    after midnight, January 1, 1601 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), in
    the Gregorian calendar.

        NOTE: Neither the Gregorian calendar or the modern UTC time zone
        were in use in most of the world at that date, but times are
        represented as if they were, using the obvious backwards
        projection of the current UTC time zone and Gregorian calendar
        rules to January 1, 1601.  Be aware that any real-world times from
        that era will likely require Julian to Gregorian calendar
        conversions to be represented in this format and probably cannot
        be simply converted using normal time conversions from the modern
        era.

I think that phrasing would resolve my objections to the epoch, along with
the additional bits that are in the current draft about how to convert.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

From adeason@sinenomine.net  Mon Aug  8 18:54:03 2011
From: adeason@sinenomine.net (Andrew Deason)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 12:54:03 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
References: <4E2082C6.80609@anl.gov>
Message-ID: <20110808125403.f9b913b3.adeason@sinenomine.net>

On Fri, 15 Jul 2011 13:11:18 -0500
"Douglas E. Engert" <deengert@anl.gov> wrote:

> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-deason-afs3-type-time/

Based on the threads in afs3-stds, and on discussions I've had with
others, I propose the following going forward. This is what I'm working
on for an -03 draft, and it's what will appear unless I hear objections.

The epoch will be changed to the Unix epoch. Absolute time will be
signed so we can still represent the windows stuff. The language will
also be changed a bit according to Russ's suggestions ("number of
seconds since 1970 excluding leap seconds" or whatever it turns out to
be, see this sub-thread:
<http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.afs.standardization/1148/focus=1184>).

The granularity in this draft will not be changed. However, additional
types will be proposed to be used for higher efficiency and higher
granularity. That is, the current types will be AFSAbsTime64 which
corresponds to 64-bit 100-ns time, but we will also have types such as
AFSAbsTime32 (32-bit 1-s time) and AFSAbsTime96 (64-bit 1-s time plus
32-bit 1-ns). RPCs for which this matters will use some way of
accomodating and specifying these other types, but how they do so is
outside the scope of this draft (in theory this could be unions,
extended unions, separate RPCs etc; in practice right now we expect
extended unions).

In the interest of getting this i-d done as quickly as we can, the other
time types will not be added to this draft, but will be proposed in
separate i-ds and if we need to we can argue about them then. So, the
only change for draft-deason-afs3-type-time is that the type names will
be changed to AFSAbsTime64 etc, and I will include a paragraph
discussing the rationale and the future use of other time types for
interoperability and efficiency. I feel this will satisfy everyone's
concerns, as this approach should allow us to interoperate well with
other systems, but the common case should be kept nearly as efficient as
the current draft.

-- 
Andrew Deason
adeason@sinenomine.net


From adeason@sinenomine.net  Mon Aug  8 18:58:57 2011
From: adeason@sinenomine.net (Andrew Deason)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 12:58:57 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110808123258.59cc0539.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <8762m7ztbg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <20110808125857.a055922a.adeason@sinenomine.net>

On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 10:50:11 -0700
Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> wrote:

> We could take the same approach if we use the other epoch, although I
> think we should be more wordy about it:

Oh, I thought we'd just use the Unix epoch since it just makes some of
this easier. A note on converting to pre-UTC dates seems good, though.

Also just by the way, NTPv4 apparently uses an epoch in 1900. They have
this to say about it in RFC 5905:

    In the date and timestamp formats, the prime epoch, or base date of
    era 0, is 0 h 1 January 1900 UTC, when all bits are zero.  It should
    be noted that strictly speaking, UTC did not exist prior to 1
    January 1972, but it is convenient to assume it has existed for all
    eternity, even if all knowledge of historic leap seconds has been
    lost.

-- 
Andrew Deason
adeason@sinenomine.net


From rra@stanford.edu  Mon Aug  8 20:50:40 2011
From: rra@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:50:40 -0700
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <20110808125857.a055922a.adeason@sinenomine.net> (Andrew Deason's
 message of "Mon, 8 Aug 2011 12:58:57 -0500")
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110808123258.59cc0539.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <8762m7ztbg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110808125857.a055922a.adeason@sinenomine.net>
Message-ID: <87k4any967.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>

Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> writes:
> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> wrote:

>> We could take the same approach if we use the other epoch, although I
>> think we should be more wordy about it:

> Oh, I thought we'd just use the Unix epoch since it just makes some of
> this easier. A note on converting to pre-UTC dates seems good, though.

Jeffrey has a good point, though: we lose representability of dates that
can currently be handled with CIFS.

> Also just by the way, NTPv4 apparently uses an epoch in 1900. They have
> this to say about it in RFC 5905:

>     In the date and timestamp formats, the prime epoch, or base date of
>     era 0, is 0 h 1 January 1900 UTC, when all bits are zero.  It should
>     be noted that strictly speaking, UTC did not exist prior to 1
>     January 1972, but it is convenient to assume it has existed for all
>     eternity, even if all knowledge of historic leap seconds has been
>     lost.

Yeah, that's similar in intention to my note.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

From adeason@sinenomine.net  Mon Aug  8 21:42:13 2011
From: adeason@sinenomine.net (Andrew Deason)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 15:42:13 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110808123258.59cc0539.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <8762m7ztbg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110808125857.a055922a.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87k4any967.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <20110808154213.4ce21908.adeason@sinenomine.net>

On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:50:40 -0700
Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> wrote:

> Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> writes:
> > Oh, I thought we'd just use the Unix epoch since it just makes some
> > of this easier. A note on converting to pre-UTC dates seems good,
> > though.
> 
> Jeffrey has a good point, though: we lose representability of dates
> that can currently be handled with CIFS.

Then we just make the absolute timestamps signed. It just seems better
to me to start from an epoch that's a bit more well-defined (or at
least, more easily well-defined; we can always define 1 Jan 1600 as X
seconds before 1 Jan 1970, but that seems strangely indirect).

-- 
Andrew Deason
adeason@sinenomine.net


From rra@stanford.edu  Mon Aug  8 21:49:42 2011
From: rra@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:49:42 -0700
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <20110808154213.4ce21908.adeason@sinenomine.net> (Andrew Deason's
 message of "Mon, 8 Aug 2011 15:42:13 -0500")
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>
 <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>
 <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>
 <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110808123258.59cc0539.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <8762m7ztbg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110808125857.a055922a.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <87k4any967.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
 <20110808154213.4ce21908.adeason@sinenomine.net>
Message-ID: <87sjpbwrvd.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>

Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> writes:
> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> wrote:

>> Jeffrey has a good point, though: we lose representability of dates
>> that can currently be handled with CIFS.

> Then we just make the absolute timestamps signed. It just seems better
> to me to start from an epoch that's a bit more well-defined (or at
> least, more easily well-defined; we can always define 1 Jan 1600 as X
> seconds before 1 Jan 1970, but that seems strangely indirect).

I guess I'm ambivalent between signed timestamps and the Windows epoch.
Both of them are going to be at least somewhat unusual for typical UNIX
code.  My guess is that it will be easier to explain the Windows epoch
than it will be to explain signed arithmetic on times, but I could be
wrong.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

From jaltman@secure-endpoints.com  Mon Aug  8 22:25:48 2011
From: jaltman@secure-endpoints.com (Jeffrey Altman)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 17:25:48 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <20110808154213.4ce21908.adeason@sinenomine.net>
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>	<4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>	<D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>	<87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>	<87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<20110808123258.59cc0539.adeason@sinenomine.net>	<8762m7ztbg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<20110808125857.a055922a.adeason@sinenomine.net>	<87k4any967.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <20110808154213.4ce21908.adeason@sinenomine.net>
Message-ID: <4E40545C.6080600@secure-endpoints.com>

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig4AFFD422C27516B82CF3A430
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 8/8/2011 4:42 PM, Andrew Deason wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:50:40 -0700
> Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> wrote:
>=20
>> Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> writes:
>>> Oh, I thought we'd just use the Unix epoch since it just makes some
>>> of this easier. A note on converting to pre-UTC dates seems good,
>>> though.
>>
>> Jeffrey has a good point, though: we lose representability of dates
>> that can currently be handled with CIFS.
>=20
> Then we just make the absolute timestamps signed. It just seems better
> to me to start from an epoch that's a bit more well-defined (or at
> least, more easily well-defined; we can always define 1 Jan 1600 as X
> seconds before 1 Jan 1970, but that seems strangely indirect).

I don't have a strong feeling about the epoch.  I am fine with negative
timestamp values.



--------------enig4AFFD422C27516B82CF3A430
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOQFRfAAoJENxm1CNJffh41zQH/1a3yikgeEdDGPesg+i901Bu
vj/9ivedJ558iUUp4IuR4lC+JB236gh9AH0Mb5lt3FTPkfkX7nM+K9ZH5zDHFhSO
O+6TPvMtogJZi94yB7O/1M0cWy+D2NbY+glWBtZCzzOYf1xOyrgSozr+D6xwykS/
pVE8NpJ4zApX/94d1pNWXa+wIRSQO1RTJ2nQR8hLCMGUFaQapwKmpAPKhglKJFFH
Jl9gvt9Pb5eCFiqq5VO+ps49Ny8lCYL/49HMeF1jGSJyWs8cDJklKq3BFCn5ansd
HzN0ksSlJC6YRlj12EtacdoG0hrym2+BNCMNh2MdPduR24av5D7Aiur0b2rrWb4=
=47yu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig4AFFD422C27516B82CF3A430--


From deengert@anl.gov  Wed Aug 10 13:48:38 2011
From: deengert@anl.gov (Douglas E. Engert)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 07:48:38 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Call for nomination for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <4E38253A.6000001@anl.gov>
References: <4E38253A.6000001@anl.gov>
Message-ID: <4E427E26.9040009@anl.gov>

Let me restate this again, we have received only one nomination,
so I have also nominated 2 people. We are waiting for these 3
people to respond that they would be willing to run.

So please send in nominations to Hartmut and myself.


On 8/2/2011 11:26 AM, Douglas E. Engert wrote:
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wilkinson-afs3-standardisation-00.txt
>
> defines our election procedures to elect a co-chair. It is my position
> that is up for election, as I have the one year term. Hartmut Reuter
> is the other co-chair with the 2 year term, due to expire next year.
>
> Schedule:
> Nominations open 8/2 - 8/16
> Announcement of nominations 8/17
> Voting 8-17 - 8/31
> Election results 9/7
>
> Please read section 2.2.2 as to who can be nominated, and who can vote.
>
> Send nominations to Hartmut and myself as the vote takers, and we can
> contact the potential nominees to make sure they are willing to serve.
>
> As Jeff points out:
>  > The subscriber list is not public; however, any subscriber can obtain a
>  > copy by filling in his username and password near the bottom of the page
>  > at https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization and
>  > selecting "Visit Subscriber List". Of course, that's as of today. To
>  > build a voter list, you also need to know that there have been no new
>  > subscribers and no one has unsubscribed since April 25, before the start
>  > of the eligibility period.
>
> (You can also get your password sent to you with the "Edit Options")
>

-- 

  Douglas E. Engert  <DEEngert@anl.gov>
  Argonne National Laboratory
  9700 South Cass Avenue
  Argonne, Illinois  60439
  (630) 252-5444
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
AFS3-standardization@openafs.org
http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization



From jhutz@cmu.edu  Wed Aug 10 13:58:17 2011
From: jhutz@cmu.edu (Jeffrey Hutzelman)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:58:17 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Call for nomination for the position of
 AFS3-standardization co-chair
In-Reply-To: <4E427E26.9040009@anl.gov>
References: <4E38253A.6000001@anl.gov>  <4E427E26.9040009@anl.gov>
Message-ID: <1312981097.3168.159.camel@destiny.pc.cs.cmu.edu>

On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 07:48 -0500, Douglas E. Engert wrote:
> Let me restate this again, we have received only one nomination,
> so I have also nominated 2 people. We are waiting for these 3
> people to respond that they would be willing to run.

Per 2.2.2, nominations are supposed to be sent to this mailing list, and
each nomination should be made and seconded by eligible voters.  I don't
see that any nominations have gone to the list so far.  It would be good
if those who have already made nominations would copy them to the list;
otherwise it will be hard to get a second. :-)

-- Jeff


From deengert@anl.gov  Wed Aug 10 14:08:24 2011
From: deengert@anl.gov (Douglas E. Engert)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:08:24 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Call for nomination for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <1312981097.3168.159.camel@destiny.pc.cs.cmu.edu>
References: <4E38253A.6000001@anl.gov>  <4E427E26.9040009@anl.gov> <1312981097.3168.159.camel@destiny.pc.cs.cmu.edu>
Message-ID: <4E4282C8.8030702@anl.gov>


On 8/10/2011 7:58 AM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 07:48 -0500, Douglas E. Engert wrote:
>> Let me restate this again, we have received only one nomination,
>> so I have also nominated 2 people. We are waiting for these 3
>> people to respond that they would be willing to run.
>
> Per 2.2.2, nominations are supposed to be sent to this mailing list, and
> each nomination should be made and seconded by eligible voters.  I don't
> see that any nominations have gone to the list so far.  It would be good
> if those who have already made nominations would copy them to the list;
> otherwise it will be hard to get a second. :-)

Good point. So far no one has indicated that they are "Any consenting individual"
so I have not put their name out. The other note sent to the vote takers,
gave a name, and I am waiting for a reply as to weither that individual
is willing.

>
> -- Jeff
>
>

-- 

  Douglas E. Engert  <DEEngert@anl.gov>
  Argonne National Laboratory
  9700 South Cass Avenue
  Argonne, Illinois  60439
  (630) 252-5444

From deengert@anl.gov  Wed Aug 10 14:45:50 2011
From: deengert@anl.gov (Douglas E. Engert)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:45:50 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Call for nomination for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <4E38253A.6000001@anl.gov>
References: <4E38253A.6000001@anl.gov>
Message-ID: <4E428B8E.9040602@anl.gov>

I (as a group member, not as co-chair) would like to place in nomination
for the co-chair of the AFS3-standardization group, Jeffrey Hutzelman.

Jeff's IETF experiences, knowledge of AFS, and
organizations skills make him an ideal candidate for the position.


On 8/2/2011 11:26 AM, Douglas E. Engert wrote:
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wilkinson-afs3-standardisation-00.txt
>
> defines our election procedures to elect a co-chair. It is my position
> that is up for election, as I have the one year term. Hartmut Reuter
> is the other co-chair with the 2 year term, due to expire next year.
>
> Schedule:
> Nominations open 8/2 - 8/16
> Announcement of nominations 8/17
> Voting 8-17 - 8/31
> Election results 9/7
>
> Please read section 2.2.2 as to who can be nominated, and who can vote.
>
> Send nominations to Hartmut and myself as the vote takers, and we can
> contact the potential nominees to make sure they are willing to serve.
>
> As Jeff points out:
>  > The subscriber list is not public; however, any subscriber can obtain a
>  > copy by filling in his username and password near the bottom of the page
>  > at https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization and
>  > selecting "Visit Subscriber List". Of course, that's as of today. To
>  > build a voter list, you also need to know that there have been no new
>  > subscribers and no one has unsubscribed since April 25, before the start
>  > of the eligibility period.
>
> (You can also get your password sent to you with the "Edit Options")
>

-- 

  Douglas E. Engert  <DEEngert@anl.gov>
  Argonne National Laboratory
  9700 South Cass Avenue
  Argonne, Illinois  60439
  (630) 252-5444

From matt@linuxbox.com  Wed Aug 10 15:10:02 2011
From: matt@linuxbox.com (Matt W. Benjamin)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 10:10:02 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [AFS3-std] Call for nomination for the position of
 AFS3-standardization co-chair
In-Reply-To: <4E428B8E.9040602@anl.gov>
Message-ID: <562730635.18.1312985402484.JavaMail.root@thunderbeast.private.linuxbox.com>

Second.

----- "Douglas E. Engert" <deengert@anl.gov> wrote:

> I (as a group member, not as co-chair) would like to place in
> nomination
> for the co-chair of the AFS3-standardization group, Jeffrey
> Hutzelman.
> 
> Jeff's IETF experiences, knowledge of AFS, and
> organizations skills make him an ideal candidate for the position.
> 
> 
-- 

Matt Benjamin

The Linux Box
206 South Fifth Ave. Suite 150
Ann Arbor, MI  48104

http://linuxbox.com

tel. 734-761-4689
fax. 734-769-8938
cel. 734-216-5309

From jaltman@secure-endpoints.com  Wed Aug 10 16:00:04 2011
From: jaltman@secure-endpoints.com (Jeffrey Altman)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:00:04 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Call for nomination for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <562730635.18.1312985402484.JavaMail.root@thunderbeast.private.linuxbox.com>
References: <562730635.18.1312985402484.JavaMail.root@thunderbeast.private.linuxbox.com>
Message-ID: <4E429CF4.5060705@secure-endpoints.com>

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig4E96346D395F7DE12DCC99A3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 8/10/2011 10:10 AM, Matt W. Benjamin wrote:
> Second.
>=20
> ----- "Douglas E. Engert" <deengert@anl.gov> wrote:
>=20
>> I (as a group member, not as co-chair) would like to place in
>> nomination
>> for the co-chair of the AFS3-standardization group, Jeffrey
>> Hutzelman.
>>
>> Jeff's IETF experiences, knowledge of AFS, and
>> organizations skills make him an ideal candidate for the position.
>>
>>

I believe that Jeff would make an excellent chair (if he has time) but
would prefer that the Chair not also be a registrar.



--------------enig4E96346D395F7DE12DCC99A3
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOQpz3AAoJENxm1CNJffh4YcYH/2UAYaa+ASU7rCdoqMODFk1D
efEUmqC1fwllQ+RCfTLzBJdLUM/9a0tT4/EPmKtfQ+TqGAAfe56ncmykpwDsSM+w
qsNOPxC+5J9YpAi9CCsNx0i6ynuTAd7i/pLrxl2ZbBGIgHXcTx+GqVLneummsdvb
I4KLDxYYIZOhz6LTywKZBIfrm5JuO3SUI1W8JQ+1BbTXjyRl6u+N5qW+8p4JGy0q
G7ZXnLMmJwYuW8XqaJqG+q0LOuGiKcggYX9Gzs9o4lGp0B+l0Jf2LftM1Vp8epUO
aBAVyhW7MF3tZQEys3K0/r6GVnSiQqJuAB01FTzD5M86wdsnuLp7XW/njYcuy+Y=
=EpGd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig4E96346D395F7DE12DCC99A3--


From deengert@anl.gov  Wed Aug 10 16:22:50 2011
From: deengert@anl.gov (Douglas E. Engert)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 10:22:50 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Call for nomination for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <4E429CF4.5060705@secure-endpoints.com>
References: <562730635.18.1312985402484.JavaMail.root@thunderbeast.private.linuxbox.com> <4E429CF4.5060705@secure-endpoints.com>
Message-ID: <4E42A24A.6090206@anl.gov>


On 8/10/2011 10:00 AM, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
> On 8/10/2011 10:10 AM, Matt W. Benjamin wrote:
>> Second.
>>
>> ----- "Douglas E. Engert"<deengert@anl.gov>  wrote:
>>
>>> I (as a group member, not as co-chair) would like to place in
>>> nomination
>>> for the co-chair of the AFS3-standardization group, Jeffrey
>>> Hutzelman.
>>>
>>> Jeff's IETF experiences, knowledge of AFS, and
>>> organizations skills make him an ideal candidate for the position.
>>>
>>>
>
> I believe that Jeff would make an excellent chair (if he has time) but
> would prefer that the Chair not also be a registrar.

I understand.  Section 2.3.2 says: "it is proposed to extend the role of
registrar to include a number of individuals from the community."
So the work could be spread around if that is the issue.

>
>

-- 

  Douglas E. Engert  <DEEngert@anl.gov>
  Argonne National Laboratory
  9700 South Cass Avenue
  Argonne, Illinois  60439
  (630) 252-5444

From scs@umich.edu  Wed Aug 10 16:53:37 2011
From: scs@umich.edu (Steve Simmons)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:53:37 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <87bow86cqs.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org> <4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu> <D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk> <87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net> <87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <AD980913-CFB3-4DD1-816B-F3817EC29D1B@sxw.org.uk> <87wrex836y.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <4E36E4D7.9010308@secure-endpoints.com> <87fwll81hg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <4E36E9F5.9000502@secure-endpoints.com> <871ux580f5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <4E371520.2050905@secure-endpoints.com> <87livc6del.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> <4E371886.8010307@secure-endpoints.com> <87bow86cqs.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <11B3F212-2286-4452-9917-88D390C380BD@umich.edu>

On Aug 1, 2011, at 5:30 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:

> . . . One of the interesting questions is whether conversion of
> the first and last calendar times above are, when represented as
> timestamps, one second apart or two seconds apart.
>=20
> Note that, in POSIX, they're one second apart, because POSIX time =
contains
> no leap seconds by definition (which means that it's not really =
possible
> to accurately represent those dates).
>=20
> On UNIX systems, using mktime on those dates will generally convert as
> follows:
>=20
>    1972-06-30 23:59:59         78821999
>    1972-06-30 23:59:60         78822000
>    1972-07-01 00:00:00         78822000
>=20
> There's not really a "right" answer here; we just need to say what the
> answer is.

The last paragraph says it, both w/r/t the POSIX issues above and the =
various other time issues discussed in this thread. We don't need to be =
absolutely right*, nor do we necessarily need to be fully in agreement =
with any other vendor or standards system. We just need to say what we =
are doing.

I proposed we be broken in the same way POSIX is broken, rather than =
being any other brand of broken or inventing our own. :-)

Steve

* IMHO 'absolutely right' would involved knowing what is right, and =
presenting to all the other broken implementations their expected broken =
data. The former is beyond our scope and abilities, the latter . . . =
well, that way lies madness. Let's face it, 99.99% of the time all we're =
talking about are filesystem timestamps. If someone wants to touch a =
file with the date Sept 10 1752 and not specify anything else about how =
to interpret that date, they deserve the wrongness they get. And anybody =
who's doing work where leap seconds and calendar type transitions matter =
is not doing it using POSIX, Windows, or any other OS-time =
representation.**

** No, I have no freaking idea what they're using.=

From deengert@anl.gov  Wed Aug 10 22:15:26 2011
From: deengert@anl.gov (Douglas E. Engert)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 16:15:26 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] AFS3-standardization Co-Chair Nominations time commitments
Message-ID: <4E42F4EE.7020807@anl.gov>

One of the potential nominees asked:

 > Can you give me some idea of what time commitment is required?

So far it has been only a few hours a week, but depending on how much you
want to get involved, and how many drafts are active, it could be more.

There are no meeting you have to attend, and the duties of a co-chair are to
keep the group inline, and moving.  A co-chair could then leave it up to the
author of a draft to handle all the issues for a draft or get more involved
if this is not happening. (So far that has not been a problem.)

The chair does not have to be an expert in the details of a draft, but needs
to recognize that others in the group have issues and if there is general
consensuses for a draft.

After consensuses, we are submitting our drafts as IETF Independent
Submissions to the RFC editor. As this process is designed for individuals,
not groups, I have left the submission up to the authors.  We are breaking
ground as a group in submitting a  group approved draft in this way.

We have our first draft in that state waiting for the three reviewers (they
know who they are) to get their reviews in to the RFC Editor. I have had some
e-mail discussions with the IETF RFC Editor on this process.
on behalf of the group.

When the first draft is reviewed, I expect that there will be some additional
text that needs  to be added to the draft, and to all our drafts. The
individual authors of the drafts will have to do this. It is up to the Chair
to keep after them.

There are two chairs, Hartmut is the co-chair, for one more year, and the new
co-chair will have a 2 year term. So it is up to the chairs how the work is
split, and how much time you want to put into it.

-- 

  Douglas E. Engert  <DEEngert@anl.gov>
  Argonne National Laboratory
  9700 South Cass Avenue
  Argonne, Illinois  60439
  (630) 252-5444

From adeason@sinenomine.net  Fri Aug 12 17:31:02 2011
From: adeason@sinenomine.net (Andrew Deason)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 11:31:02 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: Call for nomination for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <4E38253A.6000001@anl.gov>
References: <4E38253A.6000001@anl.gov>
Message-ID: <20110812113102.6efde0c0.adeason@sinenomine.net>

I nominate Mike Meffie for co-chair of the AFS3 standardization group.

-- 
Andrew Deason
adeason@sinenomine.net

From jhutz@cmu.edu  Fri Aug 12 22:08:57 2011
From: jhutz@cmu.edu (Jeffrey Hutzelman)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 17:08:57 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Call for nomination for the position of
 AFS3-standardization co-chair
In-Reply-To: <4E429CF4.5060705@secure-endpoints.com>
References: <562730635.18.1312985402484.JavaMail.root@thunderbeast.private.linuxbox.com>
 <4E429CF4.5060705@secure-endpoints.com>
Message-ID: <1313183337.3168.275.camel@destiny.pc.cs.cmu.edu>

On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 11:00 -0400, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
> On 8/10/2011 10:10 AM, Matt W. Benjamin wrote:
> > Second.
> > 
> > ----- "Douglas E. Engert" <deengert@anl.gov> wrote:
> > 
> >> I (as a group member, not as co-chair) would like to place in
> >> nomination
> >> for the co-chair of the AFS3-standardization group, Jeffrey
> >> Hutzelman.
> >>
> >> Jeff's IETF experiences, knowledge of AFS, and
> >> organizations skills make him an ideal candidate for the position.

Accept.



> I believe that Jeff would make an excellent chair (if he has time) but
> would prefer that the Chair not also be a registrar.

I'd very much like to take a -- I was going to say "less active", but I
really mean more like "less blocking" -- role in the registrar process.
We actually have other registrars; perhaps if we can get them truly spun
up to the point where they are handling day-to-day requests, such things
can actually be handled day-to-day.

That said, I don't think there's a strong conflict here; neither chairs
nor registrars are intended as a check on the power of the other.

-- Jeff


From matt@linuxbox.com  Sat Aug 13 01:03:09 2011
From: matt@linuxbox.com (Matt W. Benjamin)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 20:03:09 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: Call for nomination for the position of
 AFS3-standardization co-chair
In-Reply-To: <20110812113102.6efde0c0.adeason@sinenomine.net>
Message-ID: <1764277117.94.1313193789600.JavaMail.root@thunderbeast.private.linuxbox.com>

Hi,

I will second this, I assume it means Mike is a volunteer.

Matt

----- "Andrew Deason" <adeason@sinenomine.net> wrote:

> I nominate Mike Meffie for co-chair of the AFS3 standardization
> group.
> 
> -- 
> Andrew Deason
> adeason@sinenomine.net
> _______________________________________________
> AFS3-standardization mailing list
> AFS3-standardization@openafs.org
> http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization

-- 

Matt Benjamin

The Linux Box
206 South Fifth Ave. Suite 150
Ann Arbor, MI  48104

http://linuxbox.com

tel. 734-761-4689
fax. 734-769-8938
cel. 734-216-5309

From deengert@anl.gov  Tue Aug 16 15:09:01 2011
From: deengert@anl.gov (Douglas E. Engert)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 09:09:01 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Fwd: Re: [rfc-ise] AFS3 Standardization  and Independent Submissions
Message-ID: <4E4A79FD.2000808@anl.gov>

Our first draft is moving through the IETF Independent Submission Process=
,
and is now waiting for the author.

As far as I know, the two other reviewers have not sent in their reviews.
and it would be good have have all the reviews in before submitting a new=
 draft.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [rfc-ise] AFS3 Standardization  and Independent Submissions
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 17:15:07 -0700
From: Nevil Brownlee <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org>
Organization: Independent Stream
To: Derrick Brashear <shadow@gmail.com>
CC: ISE <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org>, Hartmut Reuter <reuter@rzg.mpg.de>,  "D=
ouglas E. Engert" <deengert@anl.gov>


Hi Derrick:

Henry Hotz has sent me the appended review of your draft, so I've changed
its state to ISR-AUTH.  Would you please consider his comments, and publi=
sh
a new revision that addresses them.

I'm still waiting for reviews from Simon Wilkinson and Jeff Altman, I'll
prod them now!

Cheers, Nevil


On 08/01/2011 06:21 PM, Henry B. Hotz wrote:
> I've looked at<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brashear-afs3-pts-exten=
ded-names-09>  and it is generally fine per-se as to content.
>
> What I see as significant problems are historical artifacts of the stan=
dardization process.  This document updates a protocol that does not have=
 a pre-existing standard description.  Consequently, there are a number o=
f things which are referenced, but not defined.
>
> The biggie is the Rx protocol itself.  The standard reference for that =
is Ed Zayas' "AFS-3 Programmer=92s Reference: Specification for the Rx Re=
mote Procedure Call Facility", Version 1.2 of 28 August 1991.  I don't kn=
ow if that should be a normative or informative reference.  I'm inclined =
to say informative since it isn't a standards document and wasn't even re=
ally binding on Transarc when they put it out.
>
> That document appears to define everything which I had marked as needin=
g definition when I read the draft.
>
> The following comments are just nits:
>
> An informative reference to "AFS-3 Programmer=92s Reference: Architectu=
ral Overview" might also be useful, but not necessary.  (It's referenced =
by the Rx doc anyway.)
>
> Section 6 makes no mention of how an entity is authenticated.  Not sure=
 it needs to, but I felt funny about it.
>
> The sentence "It is expected. . ." near the top of page 6 seems unclear=
 to me.  More generally the language concerning how names are to be compa=
red stays strictly to what the GSSAPI standards say.  Speaking from exper=
ience people violate the "MUST NOT" because they need to deal with case-f=
olding caused by Microsoft Active Directory.  I wish I had some standards=
-confoming procedure which also worked with AD without deployment convent=
ions or other presumptions, but I don't.  Absent such a thing I can't sug=
gest (or even ask for) changes, but I could wish for some language that b=
etter reflected practical necessity.
>
> The PrCapabilities line near the top of page 7 should be indented one m=
ore level.
>
>
> On Jun 1, 2011, at 7:00 PM, Nevil Brownlee wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Henry:
>>
>> It's been about three weeks since you volunteered to review
>> the draft: draft-brashear-afs3-pts-extended-names
>>
>> Can you estimate when you'll be able to send me the review,
>> please?
>>
>> Cheers, Nevil
>>
>>
>> On 9/05/11 12:26 PM, Jeffrey Altman wrote:
>>> Nevil:
>>>
>>> Both Simon and I will do so.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Jeffrey Altman
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/8/2011 6:45 PM, Nevil Brownlee wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Douglas:
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you've defined 'independent reviewer' correctly.
>>>>
>>>> Two reviews would be enough, that would be Henry (not involved
>>>> in AFS3 efforts) and one other - Simon and Jeff, could you please
>>>> decide which of you will do it? (Of course, if you'd both like to,
>>>> that would be fine too).
>>>>
>>>> Here's the note I usually send to prospective reviewers:
>>>>
>>>>    "would you be prepared to do a more detailed review, with two
>>>>     parts:
>>>>      a) Comments for the Authors
>>>>           Reasons for rejection or suggestions for improvements.
>>>>           These will be returned to authors (or you may wish to have
>>>>           email discussions directly with authors).  Could they also
>>>>           be published on the Independent Submissions web site,
>>>>           either as public reviews or as anonymous reviews?
>>>>      b) Comments for the Independent Submissions Editor
>>>>          These are advice to the ISE, and will not be published."
>>>>
>>>> Cheers, Nevil
>>
>> --
>> Nevil Brownlee (ISE), rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> The opinions expressed in this message are mine,
> not those of Caltech, JPL, NASA, or the US Government.
> Henry.B.Hotz@jpl.nasa.gov, or hbhotz@oxy.edu
>
>
>


--=20
Nevil Brownlee (ISE), rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org



From mmeffie@sinenomine.net  Tue Aug 16 17:40:41 2011
From: mmeffie@sinenomine.net (Michael Meffie)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:40:41 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: Call for nomination for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <1764277117.94.1313193789600.JavaMail.root@thunderbeast.private.linuxbox.com>
References: <1764277117.94.1313193789600.JavaMail.root@thunderbeast.private.linuxbox.com>
Message-ID: <4E4A9D89.50600@sinenomine.net>

Matt W. Benjamin wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I will second this, I assume it means Mike is a volunteer.

Yes, thank you. I do accept the nomination.

Mike --

From deengert@anl.gov  Wed Aug 17 19:55:01 2011
From: deengert@anl.gov (Douglas E. Engert)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 13:55:01 -0500
Subject: Fwd: [AFS3-std] Call for nomination for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
Message-ID: <4E4C0E85.90908@anl.gov>

Today is the day to announce the nominations. But I am having
problems getting in touch with our co-chair, Hartmut. The
co-chairs have to agree on the nominations, and count the votes.

I have not heard from him since March. I have a note into
3 contacts and the secretaries at rzg.mpg.de to see if
they know anything. (They may not see the note till tomorrow.)

Has anyone heard anything?

(It could just be August is vacation time for many of us, and
in the  future we should consider moving back the elections
till a month or two.)


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [AFS3-std] Call for nomination for the position of  AFS3-standardization co-chair
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 11:26:34 -0500
From: Douglas E. Engert <deengert@anl.gov>
To: afs3-standardization@openafs.org <afs3-standardization@openafs.org>
CC: Hartmut Reuter <reuter@rzg.mpg.de>,	"Douglas E. Engert" <deengert@anl.gov>

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wilkinson-afs3-standardisation-00.txt

defines our election procedures to elect a co-chair. It is my position
that is up for election, as I have the one year term. Hartmut Reuter
is the other co-chair with the 2 year term, due to expire next year.

Schedule:
   Nominations open            8/2 - 8/16
   Announcement of nominations 8/17
   Voting                      8-17 - 8/31
   Election results            9/7

Please read section 2.2.2 as to who can be nominated, and who can vote.

Send nominations to Hartmut and myself as the vote takers, and we can
contact the potential nominees to make sure they are willing to serve.

As Jeff points out:
> The subscriber list is not public; however, any subscriber can obtain a
> copy by filling in his username and password near the bottom of the page
> at https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization and
> selecting "Visit Subscriber List".  Of course, that's as of today.  To
> build a voter list, you also need to know that there have been no new
> subscribers and no one has unsubscribed since April 25, before the start
> of the eligibility period.

(You can also get your password sent to you with the "Edit Options")

-- 

  Douglas E. Engert  <DEEngert@anl.gov>
  Argonne National Laboratory
  9700 South Cass Avenue
  Argonne, Illinois  60439
  (630) 252-5444
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
AFS3-standardization@openafs.org
http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization



From jaltman@secure-endpoints.com  Thu Aug 18 02:46:45 2011
From: jaltman@secure-endpoints.com (Jeffrey Altman)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 21:46:45 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02
In-Reply-To: <87k4any967.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
References: <20110728135500.76B9ED@grand.central.org>	<4E31776B.1040007@odu.edu>	<D63DA161-70CB-4A7A-9C3C-39E89C5EAA9F@sxw.org.uk>	<87ei19yma5.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<20110729161932.18bc0ced.adeason@sinenomine.net>	<87fwlotw4u.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<20110808123258.59cc0539.adeason@sinenomine.net>	<8762m7ztbg.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>	<20110808125857.a055922a.adeason@sinenomine.net> <87k4any967.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <4E4C6F05.2070701@secure-endpoints.com>

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig960E6E28E0B52C10FA2FA539
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I came across this today which might be of interest:

http://data.iers.org/products/16/14844/orig/bulletinc-042.txt

Quoting:

"IMPORTANT: After years of discussions, a proposal to fundamentally
redefine UTC will come to a conclusive vote in January 2012 at the ITU-R
in Geneva.

"This proposal would halt the intercalary adjustments known as leap
seconds that maintain UTC as a form of Universal Time."


If the proposal is approved it the definition would change in five years
from the vote.

Our input will be accepted on the subject until the end of August.
There are some interesting papers linked from the questionnaire.

http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/index.php?index=3Dquestionnaire



--------------enig960E6E28E0B52C10FA2FA539
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOTG8IAAoJENxm1CNJffh4YwoH+gLXPdKaRz766xaAh+8gt6J8
sYjHtmMlBr5PWOaPMBi5LUS/QAXTyhZS/EfyxMang48B/ByM44h07nhtXoe+qW9f
xk9s0+s3UnPbjpw3+USi9LoeBgAW2x+LVMpL76be9DBM+iTQ2VQT0KrY9cu7Jy+v
mGkLWImwfVkGUQczUdvzKNA1oyAm1VdJuYhOFx7meLK3HBmmJL4wSDizb6HiU7Ze
s5tp1NLMSctvTJItRSXb9OebXQEEzlSqyVjG1VXOk1GSaGX7sExPZT3fDc//NcV4
GeeiqaUL4eonGcPoKTYn+bBtaXRMZlJKYrUDTolPZ0b4MophVkmr5uA1bmm+GRU=
=txEM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig960E6E28E0B52C10FA2FA539--


From reuter@rzg.mpg.de  Thu Aug 18 13:26:53 2011
From: reuter@rzg.mpg.de (Hartmut Reuter)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:26:53 +0200
Subject: Fwd: [AFS3-std] Call for nomination for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <4E4C0E85.90908@anl.gov>
References: <4E4C0E85.90908@anl.gov>
Message-ID: <4E4D050D.2050201@rzg.mpg.de>

Douglas E. Engert wrote:
> Today is the day to announce the nominations. But I am having
> problems getting in touch with our co-chair, Hartmut. The
> co-chairs have to agree on the nominations, and count the votes.
>
> I have not heard from him since March. I have a note into
> 3 contacts and the secretaries at rzg.mpg.de to see if
> they know anything. (They may not see the note till tomorrow.)
>
> Has anyone heard anything?
>
> (It could just be August is vacation time for many of us, and
> in the future we should consider moving back the elections
> till a month or two.)
>

Doug,

sorry for the delay, I was in holidays without access to my mail, but now I am 
back. I have now followed the last weeks of the mailing list and it seems to me 
that there are only three nominations:

Kim Kimball
Jeffrey Hutzelman
Mike Meffie

where Kim still hasn't replied to the question if he would accept his nomination.

So now we either could follow strictly Simon Wilkinson's proposal and start the 
voting with two candidates or we could do it less strictly and wait for an 
answer of Kim before starting the voting.

What do you prefer, Doug? I am open for both ways.

Hartmut


>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [AFS3-std] Call for nomination for the position of
> AFS3-standardization co-chair
> Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 11:26:34 -0500
> From: Douglas E. Engert <deengert@anl.gov>
> To: afs3-standardization@openafs.org <afs3-standardization@openafs.org>
> CC: Hartmut Reuter <reuter@rzg.mpg.de>, "Douglas E. Engert"
> <deengert@anl.gov>
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wilkinson-afs3-standardisation-00.txt
>
> defines our election procedures to elect a co-chair. It is my position
> that is up for election, as I have the one year term. Hartmut Reuter
> is the other co-chair with the 2 year term, due to expire next year.
>
> Schedule:
> Nominations open 8/2 - 8/16
> Announcement of nominations 8/17
> Voting 8-17 - 8/31
> Election results 9/7
>
> Please read section 2.2.2 as to who can be nominated, and who can vote.
>
> Send nominations to Hartmut and myself as the vote takers, and we can
> contact the potential nominees to make sure they are willing to serve.
>
> As Jeff points out:
>> The subscriber list is not public; however, any subscriber can obtain a
>> copy by filling in his username and password near the bottom of the page
>> at https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization and
>> selecting "Visit Subscriber List". Of course, that's as of today. To
>> build a voter list, you also need to know that there have been no new
>> subscribers and no one has unsubscribed since April 25, before the start
>> of the eligibility period.
>
> (You can also get your password sent to you with the "Edit Options")
>


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hartmut Reuter                  e-mail 		reuter@rzg.mpg.de
			   	phone 		 +49-89-3299-1328
			   	fax   		 +49-89-3299-1301
RZG (Rechenzentrum Garching)   	web    http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~hwr
Computing Center of the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (MPG) and the
Institut fuer Plasmaphysik (IPP)
-----------------------------------------------------------------

From deengert@anl.gov  Thu Aug 18 15:18:24 2011
From: deengert@anl.gov (Douglas E. Engert)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 09:18:24 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization co-chair
Message-ID: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov>

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wilkinson-afs3-standardisation-00.txt

defines our election procedures to elect a co-chair for a 2 year term
starting October 1. In the option of the co-chairs we have two candidates:

Jeffrey Hutzelman
Mike Meffie

Jeff was nominated by Doug Engert and seconded by Matt W. Benjamin.
Mike was nominated by Andrew Deason and seconded by Matt Benjamin.


I am revising the schedule so voting starts today, and and
on September 1.

Schedule:
   Nominations open            8/2 - 8/16
   Announcement of nominations 8/18         * revised
   Voting                      8-18 - 9/1   * revised
   Election results            9/7

Please read section 2.2.2 as to who can vote.

Send votes to Hartmut and myself as the vote takers, *NOT* to the list.
Please use the subject of this email for voting, you can
reply to it, but *NOT* to the full list.




-- 

  Douglas E. Engert  <DEEngert@anl.gov>
  Argonne National Laboratory
  9700 South Cass Avenue
  Argonne, Illinois  60439
  (630) 252-5444
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
AFS3-standardization@openafs.org
http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization



From simon@sxw.org.uk  Thu Aug 18 15:30:02 2011
From: simon@sxw.org.uk (Simon Wilkinson)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 15:30:02 +0100
Subject: [AFS3-std] Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization co-chair
In-Reply-To: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov>
References: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov>
Message-ID: <9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk>

As an elector, it would help me in casting my vote if the candidates =
would be prepared to say something on the list about their vision for =
the standardisation process, what time they are prepared to devote to =
the job, and how they think we can best move things forwards.

Thanks,

Simon.


From dboyes@sinenomine.net  Thu Aug 18 18:20:24 2011
From: dboyes@sinenomine.net (David Boyes)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:20:24 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk>
References: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov>
 <9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk>
Message-ID: <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72D3@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>

> As an elector, it would help me in casting my vote if the candidates woul=
d be
> prepared to say something on the list about their vision for the
> standardisation process, what time they are prepared to devote to the job=
,
> and how they think we can best move things forwards.

While an excellent idea, it's not in the process right now. Since we have a=
lready started the voting, shouldn't we postpone introducing this until nex=
t time (and put this in the charter doc)?

-- db


From jaltman@secure-endpoints.com  Thu Aug 18 18:28:01 2011
From: jaltman@secure-endpoints.com (Jeffrey Altman)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 13:28:01 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization co-chair
In-Reply-To: <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72D3@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
References: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov> <9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk> <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72D3@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
Message-ID: <4E4D4BA1.8000809@secure-endpoints.com>

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig8FEAB52BF40AA5AACDC0015E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 8/18/2011 1:20 PM, David Boyes wrote:
>> As an elector, it would help me in casting my vote if the candidates w=
ould be
>> prepared to say something on the list about their vision for the
>> standardisation process, what time they are prepared to devote to the =
job,
>> and how they think we can best move things forwards.
>=20
> While an excellent idea, it's not in the process right now. Since we ha=
ve already started the voting, shouldn't we postpone introducing this unt=
il next time (and put this in the charter doc)?
>=20
> -- db

I see no reason why people who are running for an office should feel it
within their own powers to communicate with those they are intending to
serve.

A failure to respond to a request from the community is an indication to
me that I shouldn't vote for the unresponsive nominee.  It has nothing
to do with what is or is not required by the process.

Jeffrey Altman


--------------enig8FEAB52BF40AA5AACDC0015E
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOTUukAAoJENxm1CNJffh45ngH/3X9SN15SrE6MsBoO2ogdT6x
OFHIdXFtOIAC2rHsea1BYBbOfr6e7j//sTvjoTwoQXJDTOa6od2qHy3lh8MI2n/P
uaUf/WtsgP9Ad5Hx73oNwSzIUG6IL68j3G/9x1tRUbWgktBUGNo0DKJhvMDB7ZGr
F0aQqAyNV8v9gEN8S4i3xjBl1Khk0sJ5ECBZxryUXEsXe/MreVHhntKV7kAe19BW
fnjOh0noa1jA1VJYXTT29YrgPBc2lfjM5dNXHmaVefWul3Xi7XY3HSaJvDEQQ1WK
FWYIjmlfd1qXjybae1duFODOjQb2Cnr8jvsHBgRhB0xjTXiIrNu2xYYC2swd/yw=
=3+Iy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig8FEAB52BF40AA5AACDC0015E--


From dboyes@sinenomine.net  Thu Aug 18 18:38:48 2011
From: dboyes@sinenomine.net (David Boyes)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:38:48 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <4E4D4BA1.8000809@secure-endpoints.com>
References: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov>
 <9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72D3@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <4E4D4BA1.8000809@secure-endpoints.com>
Message-ID: <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72EF@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
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==

From adeason@sinenomine.net  Thu Aug 18 18:49:03 2011
From: adeason@sinenomine.net (Andrew Deason)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 13:49:03 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization co-chair
References: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov>
 <9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72D3@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <4E4D4BA1.8000809@secure-endpoints.com>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72EF@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
Message-ID: <20110818134903.a314437f.adeason@sinenomine.net>

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:38:48 -0500
David Boyes <dboyes@sinenomine.net> wrote:

> > A failure to respond to a request from the community is an
> > indication to me that I shouldn't vote for the unresponsive nominee.
> > It has nothing to do with what is or is not required by the process.
> 
> I disagree. We're changing the rules mid-stream. 
> 
> Right now, there is no requirement for anyone to provide a statement.
> If someone does, then good for them, but we shouldn't penalize people
> for not making one if it isn't required by the process.

The only "penalty" is that Jeff won't vote for them; nowhere do I see
that Jeff is suggesting that such candidates would be disqualified or
anything like that. Jeff is just expressing a desire as a voter, as far
as I can read. It seems good that voters express such opinions, so
candidates know what the voters are specifically looking for, if
anything.

I don't envision myself caring about position statements, but if Jeff
does, then... good for him.

-- 
Andrew Deason
adeason@sinenomine.net


From dboyes@sinenomine.net  Thu Aug 18 18:53:43 2011
From: dboyes@sinenomine.net (David Boyes)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:53:43 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <20110818134903.a314437f.adeason@sinenomine.net>
References: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov>
 <9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72D3@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <4E4D4BA1.8000809@secure-endpoints.com>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72EF@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <20110818134903.a314437f.adeason@sinenomine.net>
Message-ID: <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E7304@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>

> The only "penalty" is that Jeff won't vote for them; nowhere do I see tha=
t
> Jeff is suggesting that such candidates would be disqualified or anything=
 like
> that. Jeff is just expressing a desire as a voter, as far as I can read.

Which prima facie gives the people who do supply a statement an advantage i=
n that at least one voter will not vote for a candidate that does not suppl=
y a statement.=20

>  It seems
> good that voters express such opinions, so candidates know what the voter=
s
> are specifically looking for, if anything.

Agreed. But then all candidates should supply them.=20
=20
> I don't envision myself caring about position statements, but if Jeff doe=
s,
> then... good for him.

I would like them too. But I want them from all candidates so that I'm comp=
aring apples to apples, and that every candidate has an equal probability o=
f receiving votes from all the electors.=20


From rra@stanford.edu  Thu Aug 18 18:57:07 2011
From: rra@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 10:57:07 -0700
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization co-chair
In-Reply-To: <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E7304@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 (David Boyes's message of "Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:53:43 -0500")
References: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov>
 <9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72D3@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <4E4D4BA1.8000809@secure-endpoints.com>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72EF@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <20110818134903.a314437f.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E7304@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
Message-ID: <87aab6bo24.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>

David Boyes <dboyes@sinenomine.net> writes:

> I would like them too. But I want them from all candidates so that I'm
> comparing apples to apples, and that every candidate has an equal
> probability of receiving votes from all the electors.

You are free to reflect that desire in the way that you vote, in the same
way that others are free to reflect their desires for statements in the
way that they vote.  The rules, so far as I know, don't put any
restrictions on what factors influence the votes of the people who are
eligible to vote.

I suspect we've already exerted more effort arguing about this than it
really warranted.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

From adeason@sinenomine.net  Thu Aug 18 19:02:23 2011
From: adeason@sinenomine.net (Andrew Deason)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:02:23 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization co-chair
References: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov>
 <9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72D3@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <4E4D4BA1.8000809@secure-endpoints.com>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72EF@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <20110818134903.a314437f.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E7304@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
Message-ID: <20110818140223.c5382fd3.adeason@sinenomine.net>

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 12:53:43 -0500
David Boyes <dboyes@sinenomine.net> wrote:

> > I don't envision myself caring about position statements, but if
> > Jeff does, then... good for him.
> 
> I would like them too. But I want them from all candidates so that I'm
> comparing apples to apples, and that every candidate has an equal
> probability of receiving votes from all the electors. 

I'm not sure what you are suggesting? I think the only request was that
everyone does send such a statement. If they don't send one... nothing
happens.

I'm not sure if you are suggesting that such statements are _required_
(those that don't send one are disqualified), or that nominees _cannot_
send such statements. Both of those sound like rule changes to me moreso
than the original requests, but perhaps I am drastically misreading you.
If this is just your expression of a voter opinion, then... okay.

-- 
Andrew Deason
adeason@sinenomine.net


From deengert@anl.gov  Thu Aug 18 19:12:13 2011
From: deengert@anl.gov (Douglas E. Engert)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 13:12:13 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <87aab6bo24.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
References: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov>	<9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk>	<F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72D3@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>	<4E4D4BA1.8000809@secure-endpoints.com>	<F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72EF@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>	<20110818134903.a314437f.adeason@sinenomine.net>	<F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E7304@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com> <87aab6bo24.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <4E4D55FD.8050102@anl.gov>

As a co-chair, I see no problem with candidates making statements.


On 8/18/2011 12:57 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> David Boyes<dboyes@sinenomine.net>  writes:
>
>> I would like them too. But I want them from all candidates so that I'm
>> comparing apples to apples, and that every candidate has an equal
>> probability of receiving votes from all the electors.
>
> You are free to reflect that desire in the way that you vote, in the same
> way that others are free to reflect their desires for statements in the
> way that they vote.  The rules, so far as I know, don't put any
> restrictions on what factors influence the votes of the people who are
> eligible to vote.
>
> I suspect we've already exerted more effort arguing about this than it
> really warranted.
>

-- 

  Douglas E. Engert  <DEEngert@anl.gov>
  Argonne National Laboratory
  9700 South Cass Avenue
  Argonne, Illinois  60439
  (630) 252-5444

From dboyes@sinenomine.net  Thu Aug 18 19:15:35 2011
From: dboyes@sinenomine.net (David Boyes)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 13:15:35 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <20110818140223.c5382fd3.adeason@sinenomine.net>
References: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov>
 <9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72D3@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <4E4D4BA1.8000809@secure-endpoints.com>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72EF@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <20110818134903.a314437f.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E7304@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <20110818140223.c5382fd3.adeason@sinenomine.net>
Message-ID: <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E7318@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>

> I'm not sure what you are suggesting?

I am suggesting that in the future, the process be changed to require a sta=
tement like the one Simon requested from all candidates. I am also suggesti=
ng that while it would be nice to have that for this election voluntarily, =
not having it should not be a valid basis for rejecting a candidate for the=
 current election, since the request occurred after the official start of t=
he voting period.=20

I don't have any problem with someone providing a statement. I do have a pr=
oblem with people stating that they will reject out of hand a candidate tha=
t does not provide one if the request was not present at the start of votin=
g.=20

> I'm not sure if you are suggesting that such statements are _required_
> (those that don't send one are disqualified), or that nominees _cannot_ s=
end
> such statements. Both of those sound like rule changes to me moreso than
> the original requests, but perhaps I am drastically misreading you.

See above. I would like to see evidence that a candidate has thought about =
the long-term process and what they intend to do as chair.=20


From mmeffie@sinenomine.net  Thu Aug 18 19:36:59 2011
From: mmeffie@sinenomine.net (Michael Meffie)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:36:59 -0400
Subject: [AFS3-std] Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization co-chair
In-Reply-To: <9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk>
References: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov> <9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk>
Message-ID: <4E4D5BCB.9070604@sinenomine.net>

Simon Wilkinson wrote:

> As an elector, it would help me in casting my vote if the candidates
> would be prepared to say something on the list about their vision for
> the standardisation process, what time they are prepared to devote to
> the job, and how they think we can best move things forwards.

I agree it is a reasonable request, Simon.

If I had the opporunity to co-chair the group, firstly I would do my
best to provide to the group regular, periodic updates of the work in
progress, the status of work in progress, and public and private
reminders as needed. I would like to include timelines which should show
where we stand on documents to ensure we are moving forward in a timely
fashion.

I have participated in industry-standard forums in the past, although
not related to IETF, and understand the issues of fairness and
cooperation which is required to build a consensus.

In terms of time, I understand this position will require some time per
work week and would be able to dedicate time each week to facilitate the
standardization process.

Mike --

From gary.buhrmaster@gmail.com  Fri Aug 19 07:54:44 2011
From: gary.buhrmaster@gmail.com (Gary Buhrmaster)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 23:54:44 -0700
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: Voting for the position of AFS3-standardization co-chair
In-Reply-To: <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E7318@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
References: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov>
 <9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72D3@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <4E4D4BA1.8000809@secure-endpoints.com>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72EF@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <20110818134903.a314437f.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E7304@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <20110818140223.c5382fd3.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E7318@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
Message-ID: <CAMfXtQxU93c-Fc+t-fJN80ZiKfWMJ9zj2tKcE8hdoeMn9_eSDA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 11:15, David Boyes <dboyes@sinenomine.net> wrote:
..
> I am suggesting that in the future, the process be changed to require a statement like the one Simon requested from all candidates.

In the more formal elections I am familiar with, candidates
have the option of offering a statement or to choose to
provide none at all.  I think that is the appropriate way
forward (and the voters will make of those choices by
the candidates what they will, as it should be).

One alternative might be a (built-in) hold between
the candidates being announced and voting beginning
to allow the candidates to state their positions on list.
Another might be that the chairs ask that as part
of the acceptance of the nomination the potential
candidate is offered an opportunity to provide a
statement that the chair would include in the
formal "election has started" email.

But that would be for the next election.  This election
is already in progress.

From dboyes@sinenomine.net  Fri Aug 19 08:28:58 2011
From: dboyes@sinenomine.net (David Boyes)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 02:28:58 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] Re: Voting for the position of AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
In-Reply-To: <CAMfXtQxU93c-Fc+t-fJN80ZiKfWMJ9zj2tKcE8hdoeMn9_eSDA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4E4D1F30.10003@anl.gov>
 <9CDA9B32-7881-4404-B5B7-CDE86CCF82F8@sxw.org.uk>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72D3@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <4E4D4BA1.8000809@secure-endpoints.com>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E72EF@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <20110818134903.a314437f.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E7304@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <20110818140223.c5382fd3.adeason@sinenomine.net>
 <F8AAB508EF492D46AD48400E32DFFAC3181A9E7318@34093-MBX-C17.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
 <CAMfXtQxU93c-Fc+t-fJN80ZiKfWMJ9zj2tKcE8hdoeMn9_eSDA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <35BBE9DA-E253-4A01-A02A-B437E3EE6311@sinenomine.net>

> One alternative might be a (built-in) hold between
> the candidates being announced and voting beginning
> to allow the candidates to state their positions on list.
> Another might be that the chairs ask that as part
> of the acceptance of the nomination the potential
> candidate is offered an opportunity to provide a
> statement that the chair would include in the
> formal "election has started" email.

Either of these options seem reasonable for next time. I do still think tha=
t if we use them, we should officially add them to the process.=

From adeason@sinenomine.net  Fri Aug 26 23:29:32 2011
From: adeason@sinenomine.net (Andrew Deason)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 17:29:32 -0500
Subject: [AFS3-std] New version of the 64-bit time I-D (-03)
Message-ID: <20110826172932.c2ec883f.adeason@sinenomine.net>

draft-deason-afs3-type-time-03 has been posted and is available at

<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-deason-afs3-type-time/>

This changes the epoch of the absolute time types to the Unix epoch, and
changes the names to include '64' in them. Some discussion about
differing time granularities and pre-UTC dates has been added.

There are a lot of changes between -02 and -03, most of which are just
to accommodate the changes in epoch and type names, and other minor
stuff like that. While I appreciate feedback on anything in the
document, sections 5 (Resolution Limitations) and 6 (Times Before UTC)
are completely new, and contain more substantive new text than any other
changes. So, if you don't want to read the whole thing again, I'd urge
you to at least read those two sections.

-- 
Andrew Deason
adeason@sinenomine.net


From deengert@anl.gov  Mon Aug 29 14:24:53 2011
From: deengert@anl.gov (Douglas E. Engert)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 08:24:53 -0500
Subject: Fwd: [AFS3-std] Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
Message-ID: <4E5B9325.9020507@anl.gov>

This is a reminder, your votes must be in by the end of Thursday 9/1.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [AFS3-std] Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization co-chair
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 09:18:24 -0500
From: Douglas E. Engert <deengert@anl.gov>
To: afs3-standardization@openafs.org <afs3-standardization@openafs.org>
CC: Hartmut Reuter <reuter@rzg.mpg.de>,	"Douglas E. Engert" <deengert@anl.gov>

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wilkinson-afs3-standardisation-00.txt

defines our election procedures to elect a co-chair for a 2 year term
starting October 1. In the option of the co-chairs we have two candidates:

Jeffrey Hutzelman
Mike Meffie

Jeff was nominated by Doug Engert and seconded by Matt W. Benjamin.
Mike was nominated by Andrew Deason and seconded by Matt Benjamin.


I am revising the schedule so voting starts today, and and
on September 1.

Schedule:
   Nominations open            8/2 - 8/16
   Announcement of nominations 8/18         * revised
   Voting                      8-18 - 9/1   * revised
   Election results            9/7

Please read section 2.2.2 as to who can vote.

Send votes to Hartmut and myself as the vote takers, *NOT* to the list.
Please use the subject of this email for voting, you can
reply to it, but *NOT* to the full list.




-- 

  Douglas E. Engert  <DEEngert@anl.gov>
  Argonne National Laboratory
  9700 South Cass Avenue
  Argonne, Illinois  60439
  (630) 252-5444
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
AFS3-standardization@openafs.org
http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization


_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
AFS3-standardization@openafs.org
http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization



From deengert@anl.gov  Wed Aug 31 21:21:44 2011
From: deengert@anl.gov (Douglas E. Engert)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:21:44 -0500
Subject: Fwd: [AFS3-std] Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization
 co-chair
Message-ID: <4E5E97D8.3060204@anl.gov>

This is a reminder, you have only one more day to vote. Votes
must be received by Thu, 01 Sep 2011 23:59:59 -0500 (CDT)

Last year 21 people voted, so far we have received only 10 votes.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [AFS3-std] Voting for the position of  AFS3-standardization co-chair
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 09:18:24 -0500
From: Douglas E. Engert <deengert@anl.gov>
To: afs3-standardization@openafs.org <afs3-standardization@openafs.org>
CC: Hartmut Reuter <reuter@rzg.mpg.de>,	"Douglas E. Engert" <deengert@anl.gov>

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-wilkinson-afs3-standardisation-00.txt

defines our election procedures to elect a co-chair for a 2 year term
starting October 1. In the option of the co-chairs we have two candidates:

Jeffrey Hutzelman
Mike Meffie

Jeff was nominated by Doug Engert and seconded by Matt W. Benjamin.
Mike was nominated by Andrew Deason and seconded by Matt Benjamin.


I am revising the schedule so voting starts today, and and
on September 1.

Schedule:
   Nominations open            8/2 - 8/16
   Announcement of nominations 8/18         * revised
   Voting                      8-18 - 9/1   * revised
   Election results            9/7

Please read section 2.2.2 as to who can vote.

Send votes to Hartmut and myself as the vote takers, *NOT* to the list.
Please use the subject of this email for voting, you can
reply to it, but *NOT* to the full list.




-- 

  Douglas E. Engert  <DEEngert@anl.gov>
  Argonne National Laboratory
  9700 South Cass Avenue
  Argonne, Illinois  60439
  (630) 252-5444
_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
AFS3-standardization@openafs.org
http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization


_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
AFS3-standardization@openafs.org
http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization


_______________________________________________
AFS3-standardization mailing list
AFS3-standardization@openafs.org
http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization