[AFS3-std] Re: RxOSD claim on 2 structure members

[Jeffrey Altman]

Andrew Deason wrote:
>
> I have no objections. I've also seen from others some approval, and no
> disapproval, though it's only been a few days. Can I assume yet that
> we're in agreement enough to start the first bullet point going? Should
> protocol change authors start submitting enhancements?
>   
It does not hurt to know what people are looking for.   A
A requirement should specify:

   1. the affected package
   2. type and description of required value
   3. how it will be used
   4. a list of affected RPCs

In the same vein, if there are protocol values that are no longer being
used because the implementations that made use of them are no longer
being supported (MR-AFS for example), proposals can be made to remove
the fields.  Such a proposal should specify:

   1. the affected package
   2. type and description of value to be removed
   3. an explanation of why it is no longer being used
   4. a list of the affected RPCs.

Although I believe it would be helpful if the afs3 registrars would
setup an RT queue for the submissions to be sent to.
In the meantime, how about tagging the subject line with [RPC Request]
so that they are easy to find.

Jeffrey Altman