Stefan, After talking to Thomas it seems to me there are no conceptual differences - at least he and Krzysztof agree on the principle of of the dormant state. So what you mention below is more of implementation issues. All implementation issues are resolvable.
My suggestion is at this point to ignore any L3 issues and have people post their patches. RFC 2863 states MUST be taken into consideration. Proper naming must be taken into account. I will try my best to review all patches and make suggestions and then we have a unified view. Otherwise this is getting childish now. cheers, jamal On Sun, 2005-13-11 at 21:43 -0500, jamal wrote: > On Sun, 2005-13-11 at 16:47 +0100, Stefan Rompf wrote: > > Am Sonntag 13 November 2005 16:09 schrieb jamal: > > > > > 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. > > > > I thought we went past this already. > And yes, you captured my opinion on 2863 support being in the kernel. > Just like 1213 is in the kernel. But are you sure this is not resolved > already? > > Krzysztof, Thomas - can you speak if this is still your position? > I will then repost and update the issues list. > > > cheers, > jamal > > - > 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 > - 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
