Hi Darren, On Sun, 2009-07-26 at 18:33 -0700, Darren Reed wrote: > Seb, > > In the final.materials directory for PSARC/2006/475, looking at > spec.txt, I see mention of NE_SET_ZONE. I cannot see this in the > source. Does this require an update of the materials or do I need new > glasses?
This was never delivered with the project as it was removed during code-review. The case should be amended to note that. > Additionally, do you have any comments about changing the behaviour > of dl_sap for /dev/ipnet devices? The change in number space I'd like to > promote is: > 0 => AF_UNSPEC > IPV4_VERSION => AF_INET > IPV6_VERSION => AF_INET6 I can't say that I care very much either way. The advantage that the existing scheme has is that (except for 0 which is a special case) the SAP value appears in the IP header. > Finally, I'm thinking that it might either be worth dragging > ipobs_hook_type_t up to "Committed" or at least the symbols > it defines. The name "ipobs_hook_type" ... do you (or anyone > else) have any comments on that before it is cast in stone? What would be the justification for raising their stability? What would be the consumer, and where would they be documented? The only original intended consumer was the ipnet module, and at that, the preferred plan would have been to use a more general hook (which was impossible at the time). I'd expect that we could fix the ip module to generalize its use of hooks, in which case "ipobs" hooks could theoretically go away. If that's the direction we're going in, then upgrading them to Committed seems counter to that. -Seb
