From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=kpnmail.nl header.i=@kpnmail.nl header.b="ntaRrF8Q" Received: from ewsoutbound.kpnmail.nl (ewsoutbound.kpnmail.nl [195.121.94.167]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C532FAA for ; Mon, 20 Nov 2023 12:02:41 -0800 (PST) X-KPN-MessageId: bd60d1a9-87df-11ee-a95f-005056abbe64 Received: from smtp.kpnmail.nl (unknown [10.31.155.40]) by ewsoutbound.so.kpn.org (Halon) with ESMTPS id bd60d1a9-87df-11ee-a95f-005056abbe64; Mon, 20 Nov 2023 21:02:31 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kpnmail.nl; s=kpnmail01; h=content-type:mime-version:message-id:subject:to:from:date; bh=UniRdzI67XOS7ikIXX4j3nYPWBNr5bK3aKMYfqvfxzU=; b=ntaRrF8Qrg+d9b7WoVtb7jUe0tYkQe8MRoX3QgfXZ9kzvk+/vPyvozdTcINC25f7i4uST0y3mcgx9 7+tcWD4TslmN4b4FQkbVkqIDKqBLzZL0ZLrMMiaNf22G5TVrayLDAZ4KwKBSEhmKga5pmB25yQSGHQ vUdIgNkTaTfzE88Q= X-KPN-MID: 33|YIz5VoKN0Z6f0kmaezgR46p9LrxW9Rvh1Ox8HeclPpiLUumX/b/y9oVXVFU180O JIknXlAO7CVHmjhG6tR15YKXAmQV8OYlXS56CzvsMQH8= X-KPN-VerifiedSender: No X-CMASSUN: 33|Ldp0Nw6C0CchPKg0D6Kredq817lLoIQT1Gg3LvIvsvdVpD7xhRC7x7QPEboaURQ tnPkzHZnQRJJt+x/tg1WvWg== X-Originating-IP: 213.10.186.43 Received: from Antony2201.local (213-10-186-43.fixed.kpn.net [213.10.186.43]) by smtp.xs4all.nl (Halon) with ESMTPSA id c1572c72-87df-11ee-9f03-005056ab7584; Mon, 20 Nov 2023 21:02:39 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 21:02:38 +0100 From: Antony Antony To: Antony Antony Cc: Christian Hopps , Andrew Cagney , devel@linux-ipsec.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Steffen Klassert Subject: Re: [DKIM] Re: [devel-ipsec] [RFC ipsec-next v2 0/8] Add IP-TFS mode to xfrm Message-ID: References: <20231113035219.920136-1-chopps@chopps.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 09:00:45PM +0100, Antony Antony wrote: > On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 01:39:50PM -0500, Christian Hopps via Devel wrote: > > > > Andrew Cagney writes: > > > > > > I did a multiple days peer review with Chris on this pachset. So my > > > > concerns are already addressed. > > > > > > > > Further reviews are welcome! This is a bigger change and it would > > > > be nice if more people could look at it. > > > > > > I have a usability question. What name should appear when a user > > > interacts with and sees log messages from this feature? > > > ip-tfs, IP-TFS, IP_TFS > > > or: > > > iptfs, IPTFS, ... > > > > I think no `-` or `_` in the code/api. For documentation it is probably better to hew closer to the RFC and use `IP-TFS`. > > That sounds good. However, > iproute2 output, ip xfrm state, or "ip xfrm policy" is that documentation or code? > > current unsubmitted patch shows: "iptfs" > > src 192.1.2.23 dst 192.1.2.45 > proto esp spi 0x76ee6b87(1995336583) reqid 16389(0x00004005) mode iptfs there also the following line further down in ip x s iptfs-opts pkt-size 0 max-queue-size 1048576 drop-time 1000000 reorder-window 3 init-delay 0 > > root@west:/testing/pluto/ikev2-74-iptfs-01 (iptfs-aa-20231120)# ip x p > src 192.0.1.0/24 dst 192.0.2.0/24 > dir out priority 1757393 ptype main > tmpl src 192.1.2.45 dst 192.1.2.23 > proto esp reqid 16389 mode iptfs > > -antony