Asking for feedback: [PATCH] fw4: add masquerade-prefix snat type

[Bjørn Mork]

Jonas Lochmann <openwrt at jonaslochmann.de> writes:

> More than a month has passed without any feedback that helped me. There was one
> comment regarding an RFC that this does not implement (because its functionality
> and goals are similar but different)

It is not clear to me why the functionality goals SHOULD be different.
Lack of justifiaction and documention of differences make them bugs, not
features.

> the name of this feature that is considered misleading. Regarding the
> second point, there was no feedback suggesting a better name. In reply
> to that, I stated why I chose this name and consider it not misleading
> for this functionality.

The question is not whether the functionality is covered by the name,
but whether the name implies some other functionality to those who are
not already familiar with the feature.

But this is mostly pointing back to the first issue: Why is it that we
need a feature which is so weird and unique to OpenWrt that it has never
been described before?


Bjørn