From owner-freebsd-net Thu Aug 2 4:24:35 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from coconut.itojun.org (coconut.itojun.org [210.160.95.97]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C57037B401 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 04:24:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from itojun@itojun.org) Received: from itojun.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by coconut.itojun.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89AB94B21; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 20:24:26 +0900 (JST) To: tech-net@netbsd.org Cc: net@freebsd.org In-reply-to: mouse's message of Thu, 02 Aug 2001 02:24:51 -0400. <200108020624.CAA16288@Twig.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> X-Template-Reply-To: itojun@itojun.org X-Template-Return-Receipt-To: itojun@itojun.org X-PGP-Fingerprint: F8 24 B4 2C 8C 98 57 FD 90 5F B4 60 79 54 16 E2 Subject: Re: getaddrinfo() and PF_LOCAL From: itojun@iijlab.net Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 20:24:26 +0900 Message-ID: <14756.996751466@itojun.org> Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org (this is about PF_LOCAL support for getaddrinfo/getnameinfo) we had a local discussion within KAME. we do not really like to support PF_LOCAL, unless there's clear standard behavior for AF_LOCAL case. for AF independent programming point of view, unlink(2) call issue is really bitching us. also, we cannot just add incompatible functionality from others (note that glibc now drops it, so we are now compatible with glibc at this point). getaddrinfo/ getnameinfo behavior itself is rather vaguely defined in the standards (POSIX drafts as well as RFC2553/bis), and we don't want to add more jitter to it. so if you want it - get the POSIX guys to document getaddrinfo/ getnameinfo behavior for PF_LOCAL, exactly and explicitly. itojun To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message