[AFS3-std] rxgk-afs: moving SetCallBackKey to a separate document?

[Russ Allbery]

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@MIT.EDU> writes:
> On Fri, 1 Mar 2013, Jeffrey Altman wrote:

>> Extended callbacks cannot be fully implemented until there are
>> protected callback channels.  That does not mean there are not benefits
>> to protecting the callback channels in a world without extended
>> callbacks.

> I believe the question at hand is whether those benefits are sufficient
> to delay standardizing rxgk.  Do you have an opinion on this question?

Personally, I think an rxgk standard that didn't protect the callback
channel would be absurd.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>