[AFS3-std] RxOSD claim on 2 structure members

[Jeffrey Altman]

The distinction is that we know there are clients and servers in the
wild that will
be adversely affected if/when this change is integrated.  You may be
willing to say
on behalf of your clients that this is ok but too be honest, I'm not
willing to
do that to your clients.

Jeffrey Altman


Matt W. Benjamin wrote:
> 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.
>