[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZVu668MJ2iEr4fRG@Antony2201.local>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 21:00:43 +0100
From: Antony Antony <antony@...nome.org>
To: Christian Hopps <chopps@...n.net>
Cc: Andrew Cagney <andrew.cagney@...il.com>, devel@...ux-ipsec.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
Subject: Re: [DKIM] Re: [devel-ipsec] [RFC ipsec-next v2 0/8] Add IP-TFS mode
to xfrm
On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 01:39:50PM -0500, Christian Hopps via Devel wrote:
>
> Andrew Cagney <andrew.cagney@...il.com> 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
root@...t:/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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists