[AFS3-std] Re: Review/Comments Extended Callback Information Draft

[Andrew Deason]

On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 12:51:53 -0400 (EDT)
"Matt W. Benjamin" <matt@linuxbox.com> wrote:

> Yes, there are RPC refresh dependencies.  I don't believe any is a
> blocker for consensus, however, as evidenced by the request from the
> hackathon to proceed.

Oh yes, I didn't intend for that to be a blocking issue. If we just
agree that the time specification is just the same as what all AFS3 RPCs
will use, I certainly don't have any objection. I didn't know if
something should be mentioned in the draft saying something like that,
but I'll leave that to those who are more familiar with I-Ds than me.

As for the actual substance of the draft, I don't have objections. I
kind of wish asynchronous cb delivery had reached enough agreement to be
specified, but I suppose arguing about that will come later. "+1 looks
good to me, but someone else must approve".

-- 
Andrew Deason
adeason@sinenomine.net