[AFS3-std] Re: Encoding IPvN addresses

[Matt W. Benjamin]

yes.  at this point, an rpc-l primitive and corresponding rxgen support seem like something we would need to enable manageable and consistent elaboration of different union types, if I at all understand the issues.  I'm happy to make xcb conformant with this, for example.  I am not interested in seeing this wheel invented several times.

Matt

----- "Andrew Deason" <adeason@sinenomine.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 23:42:52 +0000
> Simon Wilkinson <simon@sxw.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> > > So I would agree with a primitive type. Do we want to keep new
> > > primitive types prefixed with "afs" like afsUUID was? Call it...
> > > afsTLV ?
> > 
> > I'd like to see a primitive type too. I'm not sure where you're
> > getting TLV from (yet another TLA?) - would something like
> afsAddress
> > not be cleaner?
> 
> I thought the primitive type was just for a "flexible union", and
> then
> you build an "address" type on top of it; I'd like to use the same
> type
> for other things. TLV = Tag-Length-Value, which I suppose is more of
> an
> encoding than a conceptual description. But I'm not sure what else to
> call it; a "flexible union"/afsFlexUnion, a "union with
> length"/afsLUnion, a "backwards-compatible union"/bunion ?
> 
> -- 
> Andrew Deason
> adeason@sinenomine.net
> 
> _______________________________________________
> AFS3-standardization mailing list
> AFS3-standardization@openafs.org
> http://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/afs3-standardization

-- 

Matt Benjamin

The Linux Box
206 South Fifth Ave. Suite 150
Ann Arbor, MI  48104

http://linuxbox.com

tel. 734-761-4689
fax. 734-769-8938
cel. 734-216-5309