Am Sonntag 13 November 2005 16:09 schrieb jamal: > I think the discussions have been valuable despite the time they took. > This is just to bring us back to not go on a tangent and hopefully close > this sooner.
thanks for taking the time to moderate this. > We have agreed to implement based on 2863. not really. We already have two different opinions here: a) Support RFC2863 in kernel. Propenents Stefan and Jamal (it seems) b) Add another state bit that maps to IFF_ESTABLISHED or IFF_DORMANT. A RFC2863-like state may be derived from these bits. Proponents Krzysztof and Thomas. As I'm part of the discussion, I think I should not outline both sides' arguments here. Let's call that issue #0. For both proposals, we have ideas on how to implement userspace supplicant interactions. Inactivating routes came up as an example for the usage of L3*-states, and managed to distract us from the operstate discussion. > My suggestion to move forward is: > i) Lets just stick to existing states in the RFC and no innovation of > any sort. Ok. > ii) Defer the discussion to what is done to L3 next. Definitely. > I think this is resolvable once we agree on recommendation for #1 above. > The main contention at the moment is between Thomas and Stefan - each > has a different approach and we want one patch not 10. This is easily resolvable because a decision on #0 will simply force the associated userspace interaction solution in place. We just should not forget to get an ACK from Jouni, as he will be the main user. Stefan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
