Nicolas Williams wrote: >On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 05:12:55PM -0700, Erik Nordmark wrote: > > >>Nicolas Williams wrote: >> >> >> >>>IMO: a truly extensible STREAMS (or whatever) stack would have the >>>ability to tag messages with typed-meta-data up (and down) the stack, >>> >>> >>>from stream head (and application) to driver, or the reverse, visible to >> >> >>>all things in between but _without_ having to make any modules aware of >>>any such typed-meta-data if they don't need to consume it. >>> >>> >>I fail to understand what problem you are trying to solve. >> >> > >Me? None. Yet. I interjected in someone else's thread :) > > > >>IMHO I see no benefits in a STREAMS beautification project, which is >>what "truly extensible" reads like to me ;-) >> >> > >I was opining on what that an extensible STREAMS would entail, as >opposed to opinining that we need one. Darren Reed's the one who seems >to want it (and though he didn't call 'it' "extensible STREAMS", that >was my take). > >
It's not just me who'd like this capability. At the very least, it would be desirable to add "something" to a packet receiving via pfhooks on the inbound side and be able to see that "something" again on the outbound side. Darren _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
