On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 11:00:40 -0800, Doug Barton <do...@freebsd.org> wrote: > I haven't reviewed the patch in detail yet but I wanted to first thank > you for taking on this work, and being so responsive to Fernando's > request (which I agreed with, and you updated before I even had a > chance to say so). :)
Thanks from me too. > My one comment so far is on the name of the sysctl's. There are 2 > problems with sysctl/variable names that use an rfc title. The first is > that they are not very descriptive to the 99.9% of users who are not > familiar with that particular doc. The second is more esoteric, but if > the rfc is subsequently updated or obsoleted we're stuck with either an > anachronism or updating code (both of which have their potential areas > of confusion). > > So in order to avoid this issue, and make it more consistent with the > existing: > > net.inet.ip.portrange.randomtime > net.inet.ip.portrange.randomcps > net.inet.ip.portrange.randomized > > How does net.inet.ip.portrange.randomalg sound? I would also suggest > that the second sysctl be named > net.inet.ip.portrange.randomalg.alg5_tradeoff so that one could do > sysctl net.inet.ip.portrange.randomalg' and see both values. But I won't > quibble on that. :) It's a usability issue too, so I'd certainly support renaming the sysctls to something human-friendly. It's always bad enough to go through look at a search engine to find out what net.inet.rfc1234 means. It's worse when RFC 1234 has been obsoleted a few years ago and now it's called RFC 54321. _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
