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

[Andrew Deason]

On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 09:15:59 -0500
Jason Edgecombe <jason@rampaginggeek.com> wrote:

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

How are they different conversations? Discussing how we encode IPvN
addresses on the wire is always what we were trying to solve. The latest
discussions suggest putting them in a new primitive type (an 'extensible
union' or whatever you want to call it). As far as I can tell, there are
no more loose ends with the design of such a structure, and a draft
could be written now.

I'd write it myself if I didn't think Derrick was going to do it (and if
I were better that writing these kinds of things).

-- 
Andrew Deason
adeason@sinenomine.net