Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 12:15:22 -0800 From: Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com> To: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, VANHULLEBUS Yvan <vanhu@freebsd.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r218794 - in head: . sys/netipsec Message-ID: <AANLkTinkJaj_dzn=OnsrA6exwEzSoUzWwwQ-_Y1JCuVJ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4D62B980.2090606@dougbarton.us> References: <201102180940.p1I9eD29050530@svn.freebsd.org> <20110219073412.GC2016@garage.freebsd.pl> <20110221084025.GA14934@zeninc.net> <20110221092143.GA1766@garage.freebsd.pl> <20110221110156.GA15358@zeninc.net> <4D62B980.2090606@dougbarton.us>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> wrote:
> On 02/21/2011 03:01, VANHULLEBUS Yvan wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 10:21:43AM +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
>>>
>>> > =A0On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 09:40:25AM +0100, VANHULLEBUS Yvan wrote:
>>
>> [RFC4868 and MFC]
>>>
>>> > =A0You can't talk to two such peers with sysctl or without anyway. I
>>> > assume
>>> > =A0that if someone already has tunnels configured and they work, they
>>> > work,
>>> > =A0because the other end uses 96 bits hashes. Once he upgrades there =
is
>>> > no
>>> > =A0way to get old behaviour back quickly.
>>> >
>>> > =A0You are changing on-the-wire protocol in the middle of stable bran=
ch.
>>> > Am
>>> > =A0I alone in thinking that this is bad idea?
>>
>> That's a good question.
>> Of other people also think it's a bad idea, I can just forget the MFC.
>> But the same problem will happen when we'll release 9.0.
>> Of course, this is easier to explain, as this will be a new branch.
>
> IMO RFC compliance trumps -stable here. Admittedly some small percentage =
of
> users will be inconvenienced, and that is unfortunate. However all users =
who
> start using this technology from here forward should get the full RFC
> compliant version.
>
> As Bjoern pointed out, we'll see more of this, not less because oddly eno=
ugh
> RFC publication (like many other external factors) do not revolve around =
our
> release schedules. :)
Or maybe the statement:
"Conformance and stability with the rest of the conforming
machines trumps incorrectness and stability within just older versions
of FreeBSD"?
Is the right way to say things? Personally I think Yvan's doing
the right thing as a bug's a bug, but that's just me.
*shrugs*
-Garrett
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTinkJaj_dzn=OnsrA6exwEzSoUzWwwQ-_Y1JCuVJ>