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

[Andrew Deason]

On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 16:32:57 -0400 (EDT)
"Matt W. Benjamin" <matt@linuxbox.com> wrote:

> Hi Jeff,
> 
> What concerns me is the prospect of the XCB draft needing to
> anticipate design decisions that should be left to their authors, in
> their good time.  One of the ways we'll measure the success of our
> process is that it can come to closure efficiently on proposals that
> come before it.  It won't be efficient if we allow time dilation to
> create entanglements between proposals that should have been
> independent.  It makes most sense to me to regard RPC refresh as a
> transformation on all eligible protocol, including this one.
> 
> It appears I do need to amend the XCB draft to deal with 64-bit
> time.  I will do this in whatever way best fits consensus here.  I
> would request that, as you suggest, we not give up reviewing this
> version as yet.

Can we just explicitly state that it will be further specified in a
later revision?

Or state that it is to be specified in the RPC refresh document? Trouble
is, I'm not sure how to unambiguously refer to the RPC refresh document,
since it doesn't exist yet...

-- 
Andrew Deason
adeason@sinenomine.net