[AFS3-std] Re: Claim on 2 RXAFS code points for private use

[Jeffrey Hutzelman]

On Tue, 2011-11-01 at 16:20 -0500, Andrew Deason wrote:
> > I'm not opposed to reserving a block of procedure numbers for
> > site-local use, if that's what the group would like to see.  However,
> > these would have to be truly site-local, subject to agreement by all
> > parties using a number for a particular purpose.  It would _not_ be
> > appropriate to use such numbers for vendor-specific extensions
> > delivered to customers.  In fact, it would be best in most cases for
> > site-local RPC numbers not to ever be used in production, because
> > there is no way to tell whether a peer assigns the same meaning to an
> > RPC number that you do.
> 
> If it's a completely isolated cell with centralized control of the
> client software, I don't see any problems.

Agreed.  I just wanted to note that if we do adopt such a range, we need
to clearly state what the expectations are.  There have been too many
cases in various protocols of vendors cheating and using site-local
numbers for vendor-specific purposes.

-- Jeff