On Thu, 2009-01-22 at 11:50 +0100, Darren Reed wrote: > I'm putting this fast track back into "waiting need spec" as the > submitter has taken this conversation offline.
Okay, thanks. > If there any members reading this, I'd like them to consider > derailing this fast track as, in my opinion, it has become less > than obvious (this is the 3rd time to "waiting need spec") due > to the requirements and interactions being less than trivial to > sort out. There's one outstanding issue being discussed offline, and that is related to this case's lack of layer-2 filtering on a MAC provider basis. This results in this project not being able to intercept some packets (those forwarded between physical links by a bridge), and doesn't allow the administrator the flexibility to easily express rules that apply to all MAC clients for a given MAC provider (i.e., filter all packets coming in and out of "bge0"). My assertion is that this case is thus incomplete as was proposed. These issues can likely be resolved, and the resolution can be provided in the form of a fast-track. The details of what the resolution looks like need to be designed outside the context of ARC review anyway, so I'm not convinced that a full review will help very much with that. If the project team feels that they'll save some time by having an in-meeting case review, then by all means, you're free to request a review slot and get a full review. Otherwise, it seems fine to me to work out the details of the missing pieces and submit new materials. -Seb
