[AFS3-std] Re: rxgk: Version numbers in XDR structures

[Andrew Deason]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:53:40 -0500 (EST)
"Matt W. Benjamin" <matt@linuxbox.com> wrote:

> Right, I don't see how we are altering XDR, rather rx.  I would have
> said that by creating the rxUnion we have increased the potential
> utility of rx for some hypothetical applications other than afs, but
> the utility remains potential until such an application (using the
> rxUnion, in fact) exists? 

I'm not sure if I'm following this correctly... If the afs-union type
was changed to rxUnion as an "Rx extension to XDR", does that make the
situation happier? Or are there still objections in that case? It seems
like then rxgk would just have a dependency on "Rx".

> Also, it wouldn't seem that extension of rx with new primitives
> changes things for rx standardization--who would do it, when it 'must'
> be done, etc.  Is there a group other than the afs community with an
> expressed interest in standardizing rx?

I feel like this question has come up before, and it was said that this
place is the best forum for Rx standardization discussions (can't find
the thread...). We've already been discussing Rx security layers here,
as well as other Rx details (see: "abort packet format").

It would make sense to me to split off the standards discussions if
someone is bothered by all this AFS stuff cluttering up their inbox when
all they want to discuss is Rx (or vice versa). But until that happens,
having two different fora just seems like pure overhead.

-- 
Andrew Deason
adeason@sinenomine.net