On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, JINMEI Tatuya / [ISO-2022-JP] 神明達哉 wrote:
> ...however, those corrections do not affect the main stream of this
> discussion. We've fully, fully discussed this (in the apifolks list),
> and have seen so many different views, and, as a consequence, could
> not reach consensus on a single unified behavior. Sad to say this,
> but I don't think we'll be able to force vendors a particular behavior
> based on a particular view of the model, like "the correct thing is to
> deprecate IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses"...
then why bothering to write RFC2553? if any ISV can do what he wants it
has been only a useless effort.
your arguments don't seem to have moche sense to me. rather, the
discussion should be re-opened and, as a result, a new proposed
standard should be produced.
> So, IMHO, the only feasible thing we can do now is to accept the
> differences of various implementations, and make a guidance of how to
> deal with the differences with a minimum effort.
this would be a BIG mistake, IMVHO. it is imperative to produce
a standard for BSD socket extensions, or we can forget the word
"code portability" for the next 50 years...
--
Aequam memento rebus in arduis servare mentem...
Mauro Tortonesi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ferrara Linux User Group http://www.ferrara.linux.it
Project6 - IPv6 for Linux http://project6.ferrara.linux.it
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
