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

[Michael Meffie]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 18:00:54 -0500
Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@MIT.EDU> wrote:

> 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.

Yes, that is what I meant, a timeline so we can move forward with the
rxgk-afs i-d.

> 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.

Ok, thank you. Re-reading the previous threads, I see Andrew started some
dicussions in June 2012. There were three categories; trivial/typo's,
non-trival comments, and section 10 (callbacks). Simon mentioned he had made
corrections for the typos, and it seems some updates for the non-trival
comments to his draft.  There was a long response from Simon regarding the
background for section 10 (callbacks).

> 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

Updated. Thanks Ben.

Best regards,
Mike

-- 
Michael Meffie <mmeffie@sinenomine.net>