From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Sat May 8 22:50:49 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19B9416A4CE; Sat, 8 May 2004 22:50:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.omnis.com (smtp.omnis.com [216.239.128.26]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C5BB43D41; Sat, 8 May 2004 22:50:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wes@softweyr.com) Received: from softweyr.homeunix.net (24-161-166-146.san.rr.com [24.161.166.146]) by smtp-relay.omnis.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72C79881CF6; Sat, 8 May 2004 22:50:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Wes Peters Organization: Softweyr.COM To: Sam Leffler Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 22:50:45 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.1 References: <200405061846.i46Ik3Jc060969@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040508152531.GA96827@hub.freebsd.org> <200405081125.43395.sam@errno.com> In-Reply-To: <200405081125.43395.sam@errno.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200405082250.45249.wes@softweyr.com> cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: Andre Oppermann cc: "Jacques A. Vidrine" cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: Darren Reed cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet ip_fastfwd.c ip_input.c ip_var.h X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 05:50:49 -0000 On Saturday 08 May 2004 11:25, Sam Leffler wrote: > On Saturday 08 May 2004 08:25 am, Darren Reed wrote: > > > If there were a core@ for freebsd that was active, this is the kind of > > thing I'd be writing to them about, asking for it to be backed out. > > Technical disputes of this sort are supposed to be passed to the TRB. I > personally don't see the change as important enough to argue about--I > haven't heard Andre weigh in, but I figured he'd just back it out. There is a core@ for freebsd, it is active, and it is watching this conversation. So far the summary seems to be "experts disagree." I understand and agree with Darren's concerns about duplicating code, but I think Sam's position here is the correct way for FreeBSD to proceed. Eliding options processing is desirable for a wide range of endpoint systems, including those I work on at ${DAYJOB}. I will point out that the Internet is a changing environment in ways the RFCs have not kept up with. Many TCP/IP implementations, including ours, are (no longer) in accordance with all of the relevant RFCs, including the Host Requirements, Router Requirements, and the basic TCP and IP specifications. This is at least partly because many of the RFCs are quite old and nobody has bothered to update them with implementation details that have proven to be inadequately specified or just wrong. So long as this feature is optional, regardless of the default setting, and not used as an excuse to fail to maintain the options processing in working state, I *still* have no objection to it. I welcome further review by the TRB or by the FreeBSD-net contributors. -- Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket? Wes Peters wes@softweyr.com