From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 27 13:10:13 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2E4616A41F for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2005 13:10:13 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8214343D5F for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2005 13:10:13 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j6RDAD0m032820 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2005 13:10:13 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.3/8.13.1/Submit) id j6RDADmP032819; Wed, 27 Jul 2005 13:10:13 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 13:10:13 GMT Message-Id: <200507271310.j6RDADmP032819@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Mikhail Teterin Cc: Subject: Re: bin/84106: inet_pton(AF_INET6, ....) seems too permissive X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Mikhail Teterin List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 13:10:13 -0000 The following reply was made to PR bin/84106; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Mikhail Teterin To: Hajimu UMEMOTO Cc: "Mikhail T." , FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org, standards@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bin/84106: inet_pton(AF_INET6, ....) seems too permissive Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:03:27 -0400 On Wednesday 27 July 2005 06:42 am, Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote: = mi> 1:2:3:4:5:6:7::8 = mi> or = mi> 1:2:3:4:5:6::7:8 = mi> inet_pton should reject (return 0) both of these addresses. = No, I don't think so. I cannot see such restriction in RFC 2373 2.2 = Text Representation of Addresses. Isn't it a problem of NSPR's = addtest? I thought, 8 positions is the most an IPv6 address can have. This strings have 9, don't they? I don't know :-) But the NSPR maintainer thinks, this is a bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=301987 Thanks! -mi