[AFS3-std] RxOSD claim on 2 structure members

[David Boyes]

> If we know of existing widespread use, that's a different matter.  It
> might not be if we'd had an active AFS standardization process that
> those users should have come to and didn't, but we had no
> standardization process apart from what Jeff was maintaining on grand
> (which I don't believe covers this area).  I don't think it's okay to
> punish people for not following a non-existent process.  We're the ones
> who didn't provide a way for them to reserve a field, so we should take
> the lumps and be the ones to provide a backward-compatible way forward.

So mark the ones you know of as "used by differing parties" and give the fo=
lks who want a new field a new one so things can actually progress. If they=
 step on each other, there is then a process to get a new permanent place, =
and the onus is on the conflicting users with local hacks to clean up their=
 act and move their bits to the permanent place. Let's get the problem unde=
r control, and move on. Registries aren't rocket science.

If there's nowhere to register the use of a field, then let's create one an=
d solve the problem permanently. If no one else wants to do it, I'll step u=
p and do it.=20

-- db