From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiri Benc Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/9] netlink: strict attribute checking option Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 10:08:43 +0200 Message-ID: <20151016100843.44c9172a@griffin> References: <87r3kv3hwv.fsf@stressinduktion.org> <20151016094951.11146959@griffin> <20151016.010826.1557577128395519123.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: hannes@stressinduktion.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, tgraf@suug.ch To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:34211 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752762AbbJPIIr (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Oct 2015 04:08:47 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20151016.010826.1557577128395519123.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 01:08:26 -0700 (PDT), David Miller wrote: > I think his point is that you'll be making changes to an RFC specified > protocol. The RFC is only informational, it has never became an Internet standard (under the RFC terms). And no other OS picked it up. Keeping kernel uAPI documentation in IETF database sounds rather inefficient. > But I think we need a better solution to this. I'm not opposed to a better solution. I just don't see any that's not a gross hack. Suggestions are welcome. Jiri -- Jiri Benc