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

[Jason Edgecombe]

On 02/12/2011 03:28 PM, Andrew Deason wrote:
> 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).
>
We switched from "what to store" (address+port?) to "how to store it" 
(encoding and decoding). I wasn't sure if the "what to store" question 
was resolved or not.

Jason