On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 10:39:28AM -0500, Miles Nordin wrote:
> >>>>> "mh" == Martin Husemann <martin@duskware.de> writes:
> 
>     mh> IIUC the problem is that ALTQ did not provide a clean API for
>     mh> this,
> 
[snip]
> First there was argument about whether or not it was complicated
> enough to be called an API, because if it's not called an API then
> it's harder to claim it is significant enough to obstruct commits and
> argue about who has to do the work.  Then there was argument about
> into which header file to put the prototype.  I don't think the API
> itself needs work---it's just a matter of asserting which functions
> are in the ``API'' and marking them somehow so they won't regress when
> syncing PF/ALTQ to OpenBSD.  see archives around July, 2003.
[snip]

Good summary, Miles.  That's how I remember the email threads going as well.

While the folks maintaining the pflkm have been doing a great job with getting
ALTQ support integrated into the LKM, users who don't want to, or cannot, go
the LKM route are losing out.  Given the lack of (visible) progress on this
over the past year, it seems silly to keep depriving users of the option while
the ALTQ-API panacea fails to materialize.

Obviously (based on the pflkm mailing list, and occasional threads on the
NetBSD lists, like this one), there's interest from users out there.

	ScottE