reviving rxgx-afs (was re: [AFS3-std] rxgk (protocol) error codes)

[Benjamin Kaduk]

On Tue, 22 Jan 2013, Michael Meffie wrote:

> I hope we do not need to make any more changes to the rxgk document, but
> as we discussed, it may be wise to progress rxgk and rxgk-afs as a set.
>
> That being said, are there any objections to starting the review of rxgk-afs
> in earnest and tabling all discussion on the rxgk document?

That sounds good.

> Can we get a list of the open issues and a time line on when we think we can
> have a draft for review?

Hmm, when I first read this mail I read this as open issues with the rxgk 
draft, but now I think you meant the rxgk-afs draft.

I will plan to do the same historical research for rxgk-afs that I did for 
rxgk, hopefully this week.  I won't have an idea of what the timeline will 
be until I've done that research.  I seem to recall that this document 
needed more work than the base rxgk document, though.

We could update 
http://afs3-stds.central.org/working/draft-wilkinson-afs3-rxgk/issues.html 
with a few things so as to not lose track of them, though they are minor:
Length limits on variable-length arrays
Discussion of putting errors in RX aborts vs. in-band error fields
Correct the client's termination condition for the GSSNegotiate RPC

-Ben