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

[Francis Dupont]

 In your previous mail you wrote:
   
   Just to make it sure, if you mean "accepting IPv4 packets on an
   AF_INET6 socket as IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses" by "the model in
   2553", Solaris does not follow the model, AFAIK.  Also, NetBSD disable
   the model by default.
   
=> I agree with the definition of the model... and any implementation
which doesn't follow it or disables it by default is not compliant.
We can't support every not compliant implementations just because
there are too many ways to be not compliant so your argument (we have
to support everything) is not admissible: AF independent coding style
is perhaps better but we haven't to enforce it.

Regards

[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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------