Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:03:27 -0400 From: Mikhail Teterin <mi+kde@aldan.algebra.com> To: Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@freebsd.org> Cc: standards@freebsd.org, FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org, "Mikhail T." <mi@aldan.algebra.com> Subject: Re: bin/84106: inet_pton(AF_INET6, ....) seems too permissive Message-ID: <200507270903.28085@aldan> In-Reply-To: <ygesly0zg0x.wl%ume@mahoroba.org> References: <200507260442.j6Q4gDHh028351@blue.virtual-estates.net> <ygesly0zg0x.wl%ume@mahoroba.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200507270903.28085>