> >> That said: I'm assuming it is OK to add m_tag_delete_nonopersistent(),
> >> to call it before reflecting an ICMP packet, and that FreeBSD (at
> >> least) will likely do so, too?
> >	no.  it is not decided that we introduce m_tag_delete_nonopersistent()
> >	API, so it is inappropriate for you to add them now.
> Really? I see a unanimous consensus to drop [all NetBSD] tags, in the
> specific case of icmp-reflection. Also in the general case, whenever
> an in-kernel protocol re-uses an inbound mbuf as an outbound packet,
> instead of allocating a new chain for the outbound packet.

	use m_tag_delete() in icmp_reflect case.  i can live with that.

	you are yet to define what 'persistent tag' is.  it is weird to
	introduce m_tag_delete_nonpersistent() before defining what is
	persistent and what is non-persistent (flag bit?).

> Nobody else objects to m_tag_delete_nonpersistent(). It helps maintain
> consistency, going forward, with other *BSDs, who do need it.

	"nobody else"?  why in the hell my objection gets ignored?

itojun