On Sat, Jun 28, 2003 at 09:21:55PM -0400, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> 
> Anyway, I for one am glad there is crossover between projects, and 
> don't agree that NetBSD should be wary of PF.  Heck, when there are 

My concern develops essentially as follows:

1) There are currently hard-coded calls into PF in the ALTQ code we
   are being asked to immediately adopt into NetBSD.

2) There is currently no API for using a packet classifier or filter
   other than PF with that code, though we are told such an API may
   be forthcoming.

3) Significant resistance to using a slightly older version of that
   code that does not have hardwired calls into PF until said API
   exists has been expressed by Itojun, unless I misunderstand.

4) Concern expressed by NetBSD developers that PF development seems
   to be, essentially, encapsulated within the OpenBSD project and
   that this could make it difficult for NetBSD developers to work on
   an important component of the system has been met with, in essence,
   the direct statement that if those developers are interested in
   working on PF, well, then, they should get themselves over to the
   OpenBSD project.

5) My simple mention that being an OpenBSD developer is simply not an
   option for some -- I'd go so far as to say "many" -- of the NetBSD
   developers in question was met by some highly charged invective
   calling me a liar, though the actual facts would seem to show quite
   the opposite.  This, too, does not bode well for cooperative 
   development.

-- 
 Thor Lancelot Simon	                                      tls@rek.tjls.com
   But as he knew no bad language, he had called him all the names of common
 objects that he could think of, and had screamed: "You lamp!  You towel!  You
 plate!" and so on.              --Sigmund Freud