[AFS3-std] Re: AFSVol GetSizeV2 draft

[David Boyes]

On 2/5/11 4:06 PM, "Jeffrey Hutzelman" <jhutz@cmu.edu> wrote:
>
>None.  We just don't have an rx spec yet.  We probably should; IIRC Kolya
>wrote a document some years back that would be a good starting point, if
>he'll let us use it.

I think that's the one that Mike Meffie cleaned up and submitted as an I-D
a few months ago. AFAIK, he got permission from Kolya to do so, so we may
have a start there.

>
>>> Having a constant for this might look
>>> pretty, but pretending it can't th be other than zero is silly.
>>>=20
>>
>>It may be silly but it's documenting something no one has ever bothered
>>to write down so far outside the code of an implementation.
>
>Sorry; I don't really object to having a symbolic name, as long as we
>understand why it's zero.  However, if you really want to avoid making
>assumptions based on the implementation...
>
>An Rx RPC can succeed or fail.  If it succeeds, the server sends any
>outgoing data and output parameters and then ends the call.  There is no
>return value.=20

Ugh.  Perhaps we're thinking of two different things -- the return code
communicated in the RPC and the return code for the transaction code above
it. I think we're crossing wires there.

>So, perhaps a constant for "success" is inappropriate after all, because
>on success, the protocol slot in which the error code goes doesn't exist.

In the packet, concedo. The overall transaction does have one and would
benefit from explicit definition.=20