[AFS3-std] RxOSD claim on 2 structure members

[Derrick Brashear]

I'm (mostly) with Russ. As long as site-local means "something you  
promise to *never* standardize it's fine. if you break that promise,  
someone is sad. probably mostly you.

Derrick


On Jun 12, 2009, at 9:54 PM, Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> wrote:

> Steve Simmons <scs@umich.edu> writes:
>
>> I kind of like having two types of fields - some reserved, to be used
>> for officially blessed things as we're discussing, and some
>> specifically designated for local use. In this particular case there
>> may not be enough fields/bytes to allow this, but we should at least
>> keep the idea in mind.
>
> Other protocols have had bad experiences with this, often because it's
> extremely difficult to tell in advance whether something you want to  
> do
> is going to be only a local change and then you end up wanting to
> standardize things in the local use area.  I don't know if we'd be  
> able
> to pull it off.
>
> There's some predecent in the additional ACL bits.  I'm not sure in
> which direction that example is an argument, though.
>
> -- 
> 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