[AFS3-std] RxOSD claim on 2 structure members

[Russ Allbery]

David Boyes <dboyes@sinenomine.net> writes:

> If you stick things in unused/undocumented areas in widely used
> control blocks/disk areas, you should be prepared to adapt to future
> changes on your own. That's been the deal for as long as I've ever
> seen, and I don't see what makes this any different.

That's fine for portions of the protocol where we don't know of any
existing widespread use.  We concur that should mark those as reserved
now, publicize that as well as we can, and then feel free to use them.

If we know of existing widespread use, that's a different matter.  It
might not be if we'd had an active AFS standardization process that
those users should have come to and didn't, but we had no
standardization process apart from what Jeff was maintaining on grand
(which I don't believe covers this area).  I don't think it's okay to
punish people for not following a non-existent process.  We're the ones
who didn't provide a way for them to reserve a field, so we should take
the lumps and be the ones to provide a backward-compatible way forward.

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