[AFS3-std] XCB union decoding & IPvN address Conversation

[Simon Wilkinson]

On 12 Feb 2011, at 14:15, Jason Edgecombe <jason@rampaginggeek.com> wrote:

> I got a little confused.  Was the IPvN address conversation put on hold be=
cause the encoding needs to be worked out first? If so, I'm assuming that th=
e IPvN address discussion will be revisited when the encoding is resolved. I=
s that correct?

I think some people would like to see this happen. I'm strongly opposed to t=
his approach, however. I don't believe that we have any volunteers to specif=
y, standardise or implement extended unions as RX primitives at present. Dis=
cussion here also suggests that doing so is likely to take considerably more=
 time than just doing something for addresses.

So, I would like to see a draft produced describing a new address type. I be=
lieve that we are in a position to do so now, and that we have effort to fol=
low the draft through with an implementation.

Cheers,

Simon.