[AFS3-std] Re: A call for consensus on draft-deason-afs3-type-time-02

[Russ Allbery]

Simon Wilkinson <simon@sxw.org.uk> writes:

> Would those with problems with the current draft be prepared to suggest
> new wording for:

> a) the epoch value
> b) the granularity

> that we could use as a basis for further discussion? It would also be
> wonderful if everyone with an interest in this topic could participate
> in that discussion, rather than waiting for another last call to raise
> objections.

As nice as it would be to be able to represent old timestamps in the file
system, we've never been able to before (at least consistently), and I
think the simplicity benefits for compatibility with current code bases of
sticking with the POSIX epoch are substantial.

I don't have an opinion on the granularity.  For me, the benefits of
matching NFS and the POSIX timestamp granularity is fairly evenly balanced
against the drawbacks of increasing the size of all of our protocol
packets.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>