[AFS3-std] Re: Encoding IPvN addresses

[Jeffrey Hutzelman]

--On Thursday, February 10, 2011 05:50:15 PM -0600 Andrew Deason 
<adeason@sinenomine.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 23:42:52 +0000
> Simon Wilkinson <simon@sxw.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> > So I would agree with a primitive type. Do we want to keep new
>> > primitive types prefixed with "afs" like afsUUID was? Call it...
>> > afsTLV ?
>>
>> I'd like to see a primitive type too. I'm not sure where you're
>> getting TLV from (yet another TLA?) - would something like afsAddress
>> not be cleaner?
>
> I thought the primitive type was just for a "flexible union", and then
> you build an "address" type on top of it; I'd like to use the same type
> for other things. TLV = Tag-Length-Value, which I suppose is more of an
> encoding than a conceptual description. But I'm not sure what else to
> call it; a "flexible union"/afsFlexUnion, a "union with
> length"/afsLUnion, a "backwards-compatible union"/bunion ?

Back at the beginning of the week, I was thinking in terms of a primitive 
extensible address type.  At this point, I think if we're going to define a 
new primitive type, a generic extensible union is a better choice.  I don't 
much care what we call it, provided the actual type name isn't too 
unwieldy, except that I think "TLV" is a bad choice because we already use 
that term to describe similar constructs that are not exactly this type.  I 
explicitly have no opinion on whether or not to prefix the type name with 
"afs" a la afsUUID.

-- Jeff