[00:31:11] --- Simon Wilkinson has become available [00:37:00] --- squinney has become available [01:16:03] --- Simon Wilkinson has left [02:37:43] --- Simon Wilkinson has become available [03:21:57] --- Simon Wilkinson has left [03:26:38] --- Simon Wilkinson has become available [04:13:00] --- Simon Wilkinson has left [05:06:22] --- Simon Wilkinson has become available [06:00:00] --- Simon Wilkinson has left [06:25:12] --- mvitale has become available [07:00:29] --- Simon Wilkinson has become available [07:07:26] --- ballbery has left [07:08:30] --- ballbery has become available [07:15:43] --- kula has left [07:16:59] --- kula has become available [07:19:24] --- deason has become available [07:36:34] --- meffie has become available [07:41:15] --- squinney has left [08:18:06] --- kula has left [08:20:32] --- kula has become available [09:08:03] --- Simon Wilkinson has left [09:09:12] --- Simon Wilkinson has become available [09:37:07] --- stephan.wiesand has become available [09:44:39] --- kaduk@mit.edu/barnowl has become available [09:45:32] Hmm, Andrew's (combined) comments on the rxgk-afs draft mention that an AFS registrar section is neede for allocating RPC code points ... the rxgk draft does not mention RPC code points in its present incarnation. [09:46:57] For new services, we can just claim whatever code points we wish. We then need to provide a list of those to the registrar so that others can register RPCs on that service [09:48:02] For existing services, we need to request code points are allocated by the registrar. That happens at the point that the draft reaches consensus - and the code points are allocated to exactly the RPCs described in that version of the document. Should the interface then be further refined, new code points are required. [09:49:19] i think andrews point is just to say something along the lines of the section 13 in the pts-extended names. [09:50:03] pts-extended names is different though, surely. It's allocating new RPCs in an existing service name space. [09:51:01] yes [09:53:18] We need two things - the first draft needs a registrar section requesting that the registrar record the service ID allocation to rxgk (they've already done this), open a new service registry, and record the codepoints in use for GSSNegotiate and CombineTokens. [09:53:40] The second draft needs to request allocations for its new RPCs - both those in the RXGK service, and those in other services. [09:53:49] Okay, I think I understand where things are. [09:56:02] We're currently using GSSNegotiate = 1, CombineTokens = 2, AFSCombineTokens = 3 [09:56:22] There also need to be public allocations for VL_RegisterAddrsAndKey and RXAFS_SetCallbackKey [09:57:14] Right. [10:53:10] --- stephan.wiesand has left [10:58:47] --- stephan.wiesand has become available [10:59:02] --- stephan.wiesand has left [11:34:37] --- stephan.wiesand has become available [11:37:54] --- stephan.wiesand has left [12:07:30] --- gaba_m has become available [12:08:14] --- . has become available [12:24:14] --- gaba_m has left: offline [12:28:57] --- . has left: QIP 2010: Quiet Communication [12:54:01] --- Simon Wilkinson has left [13:20:45] --- Simon Wilkinson has become available [13:49:02] --- mdionne has become available [14:29:36] --- andersk has left [14:29:41] --- andersk has become available [14:41:48] --- meffie has left [14:59:44] --- mvitale has left [15:00:22] --- mvitale has become available [15:05:54] --- Simon Wilkinson has left [16:02:27] deason, you had a comment that the "Network Working Group" was inappropriate for the rxgk-afs document, but I didn't see a reference to it anywhere in any version of that document. I assume it's not worth caring about, but figured I'd mention it here just in case. [16:07:05] can you give me a message-id? [16:26:44] --- deason has left [16:54:13] Sorry, went off to run an errand. 20120603194444.3e686713.adeason@sinenomine.net so "may not actually be you". [19:04:45] --- mdionne has left