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

[Derrick Brashear]

On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Andrew Deason <adeason@sinenomine.net> wrote:

>> b) the granularity
>
> This one I still have no idea on. I see reasons for both sides.

So is there a reason an extended union with the various stamp
granularities would be a nonstarter? In particular I'd suggest the
draft strongly discourage
sending a larger timestamp than actual information supports (e.g.
don't use bits to send precision you don't have, rather than
trailing-zero-padding a
larger than needed number)

-- 
Derrick