On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Francis Dupont wrote:
> In your previous mail you wrote:
>
> 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...
>
> => some of us are old enough or learn by the hard way that to be
> convinced to be in possesion of the Truth is not a strong argument.
i have always believed to be quite reasonable. i am certainly not in
posses of the Truth. no one is.
i have only said that it would be nice to have the possibility, for
the developer, of having two sockets (one AF_INET and the other AF_INET6)
listening on the same port traffic of two different protocols.
> Please don't reopen this discussion, to flood this mailing list
> with boring messages about this won't be a successful strategy (:-).
i have a deep respect for you and jim, who have ideas which are different
from mine. given this, don't you think that maybe this is a discussion
that could lead to interesting results?
we have only to keep the discussion within boundaries (i don't like
flame wars).
--
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
