From owner-freebsd-net Thu Aug 2 8:15:54 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from assaris.sics.se (assaris.sics.se [193.10.66.234]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A19C437B409 for ; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 08:15:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from assar@assaris.sics.se) Received: (from assar@localhost) by assaris.sics.se (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA89940; Thu, 2 Aug 2001 17:15:31 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from assar) To: itojun@iijlab.net Cc: tech-net@netbsd.org, net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: getaddrinfo() and PF_LOCAL References: <14756.996751466@itojun.org> From: Assar Westerlund Date: 02 Aug 2001 17:15:30 +0200 In-Reply-To: itojun@iijlab.net's message of "Thu, 02 Aug 2001 20:24:26 +0900" Message-ID: <5lk80mebn1.fsf@assaris.sics.se> Lines: 19 User-Agent: Gnus/5.070098 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.98) Emacs/20.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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 itojun@iijlab.net writes: > 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. I think this is the wrong approach. If we're always going to wait for a clear and standarized behaviour of something before implementing it, I'm afraid that this is not going to appear and if there is actually a standard for it, then it will have been written without the help of implementation and usage experience. > 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. agree :-) /assar To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message