Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF independence

[horape]

�Hola!

> Compaq implements it the same way.

> But as one author NO this should not go in the spec.  It is implementation
> defined.  The only way to force this is to discuss porting assumptions of
> the market place.  That is at best an art and not a science at this point
> with IPv6.  If someone does not do it this way and they are the only one
> the market will not use their system.

We should convert the art into science, and so the spec should be clear. As
in telling when is allowed to change IPV6_V6ONLY value, or specifying what
should happen if it is changed after bind/connect.

Main problem with RFC2553 is that it is too ambiguous. Different
implementations of the same standard are a Bad Thing, and vague standards
are so a Bad Thing too. RFC 2553 should be made clearer, not vaguer.

> /jim
                                        HoraPe
---
Horacio J. Pe�a
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------