[AFS3-std] RxOSD claim on 2 structure members

[Jeffrey Altman]

I do not really understand the benefit of this model given the
standardization process that we have.  Any organization that wants to
register a private RPC is free to do so.  If you have something that you
want to develop in house, register the RPCs that you are using, define
the structures that you want and go about your business.

Jeffrey Altman


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