[OpenAFS] Funding the formation of an OpenAFS Foundation (fwd)

Jeffrey Altman jaltman@your-file-system.com
Thu, 27 Sep 2012 21:49:02 -0400

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

On 9/27/2012 3:06 PM, stephen@physics.unc.edu wrote:
> The point of this email is that I hope the Elders and Gatekeepers *do*
> know that they're appreciated, even if it's not voiced often. The fact
> that OpenAFS is still "alive and kickin'" is proof to your skill and
> tenacity. Well done.

Thank you.


> That said, (and realize that I'm talking out of my *extreme* ignorance
> here) if backwards compatibility with the older protocol spec is what i=
> holding us (the community) back from moving forward with the
> much-desired new features which would make OpenAFS be taken seriously
> again (strong encryption and IPv6 being just the two that pop into my
> head at the moment), maybe we should think about this.... what about
> asking IBM about their current feelings? It's not clear below whether
> IBM's professed desire for backwards compatibility is 12-years old, or
> current.

Backward compatibility is a requirement for the entire community.  The
only criteria that is specific to IBM is that we cannot turn off older
RPCs for which there already are replacements and we cannot completely
get rid of rxkad or kaserver from the code base.  There are also some
implications for the rx transport.

Any existing cell administrator is going to want backward compatibility.
 When a file server is upgraded you do not want to have
to upgrade clients that you do not control and you do not want clients
newer than your file server to experience data access problems.  Cell
administrators still want the ability to run with mixed versions of file
servers without a flag day.

The primary impediment to moving forward is a lack of community funded
development resources.  There are very few tasks left which can be
accomplished in just a week or two and the on-going maintenance expenses
are substantial.

Jeffrey Altman

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

Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)