Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 02 Apr 2003 11:48:21 -0800
From:      Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>
To:        Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net>
Cc:        "Matthew N. Dodd" <mdodd@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: Proposal regarding the RFC 3514 handling 
Message-ID:  <20030402194821.C33692A8A5@canning.wemm.org>
In-Reply-To: <20030402213048.7d0de613.Alexander@Leidinger.net> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Apr 2003 00:21:44 -0800 (PST)
> "Matthew N. Dodd" <mdodd@freebsd.org> wrote:
> 
> > mdodd       2003/04/01 00:21:44 PST
> > 
> >   FreeBSD src repository
> > 
> >   Modified files:
> >     sbin/ping            ping.8 ping.c 
> >     share/man/man4       inet.4 ip.4 
> >     sys/netinet          in.h in_pcb.h ip.h ip_input.c ip_output.c 
> >                          ip_var.h 
> >     usr.bin/netstat      inet.c 
> >   Log:
> >   Implement support for RFC 3514 (The Security Flag in the IPv4 Header).
> 
> In the light of the actual "force" against this commit: perhaps it would
> be ok for all involved parties to only compile this code in based upon a
> kernel option...

Personally, I tend to agree.

> In my POV: people which don't know enough about this topic would IMHO
> not be concerned about this code, and people which know enough to have a
> reason to compile or not compile this code into the kernel should also
> know enough about FreeBSD to not regard this code as a lack of
> professionalism (and see it as what it is: there are people which enjoy
> to invest their time into FreeBSD... and this is what makes FreeBSD what
> it is).

Exactly.  We're supposed to be doing FreeBSD for our own enjoyment.  If
others get use from it then fine.  The day that we're no longer allowed to
have fun because it might upset somebody in some fortune-500 company will
be a sad day indeed.  Nobody said we had to be 100% deadly serious the
whole time.

.. as long as having a bit of fun doesn't get in the way..  An option would
stop it being in the code execution paths.

On the other hand, we have so much cruft in the ip input/output code paths
(2 or 3 different packet filter hooks etc), this is tiny by comparison.

Anyway, I think Matthew is going to to remove it, so maybe its a moot point.

Cheers,
-Peter
--
Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com
"All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030402194821.C33692A8A5>