[AFS3-std] RxOSD claim on 2 structure members

[Russ Allbery]

"Matt W. Benjamin" <matt@linuxbox.com> writes:

> I do not believe I missed anything.  I do know that rxosd has been
> presented to us starting at the hackathon in 2006.  I agree with what
> you've said, but time matters too--from an openafs perspective, do you
> and the other gatekeepers believe that we can arrive at a stable
> protocol extension in, say, 45 days?

I'm not sure that's a useful question.  We clearly need a protocol
extension, so it's going to take as long as a protocol extension will
take.  The effort should go into making that process effective and
efficient.

There are many places where the AFS protocol needs to change to get
things that we all want into AFS implementations.  Even if we can find
some temporary hack to avoid one in a particular spot, that doesn't
solve the problem for all the other places where the protocol needs to
change.  And those temporary hacks hurt maintainability, backward
compatibility, and other things we care about.

We need to not take end runs around a standardization process and really
solve the problem, or we're going to get into a worse mess than we have
now.  And that's not a good outcome for anyone.

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