On Friday 2010-12-17 08:25, Thomas Graf wrote:
>On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 03:22:07PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>>
>>Oh great, now the confusion is complete. One person says this,
>>another says something else. Best of all, the Netlink RFC leaves it
>>unspecified, so it's all hearsay, beliefs and Perl5-style ("Source
>>acts as normative reference") referencing. I guess we are doomed
>>until the original Netlink3549 authors step up and tell us their
>>intentions.
>>
>>As I see it, we need a discussion to specify what is to be done
>>with unspecified parts, with 3549 as an origin.
>
>The current netlink code implementation defines the standard. It is
>the standard because we have not been breaking it and will never do.
>
>Netlink is very open minded, it does not care if individual
>protocols define their own semantics.
So in fact, it does allow for preservation of attribute order and
support for multiple attributes appearing with the same type, since that
is part of my subprotocol anyway, right?
Cf. http://marc.info/?l=netfilter-devel&m=129068531114996&w=2
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
