[AFS3-std] RxOSD claim on 2 structure members

[Matt W. Benjamin]

Hi,

Honestly, I don't really believe that there is a real distinction between fields we don't know someone is using (0+ users are unknown), and the case at hand, where there are known users, and the known users are agreed on an accommodation (0+ users are unknown).

Matt

----- Original Message -----
From: "Russ Allbery" <rra@stanford.edu>
To: afs3-standardization@openafs.org
Sent: Monday, June 8, 2009 1:41:53 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [AFS3-std] RxOSD claim on 2 structure members

> Yeah, I was thinking of that, and that may be too strong.  We may want
> to apply the strong version only with protocol fields that we know
> people have been using.

> It occurs to me that if we know of unused and spare fields that we're
> pretty sure no one is using, we should try to make a really loud noise
> about how we're reserving them for *only* protocol changes that come out
> of this working group so that we can hang on to them.

Exactly, yes.

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

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