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

[Pekka Savola]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Jim Bound wrote:
> and it should not but an implementation that does not permit this is not
> optimal.  we cannot force this behavior on implementors either.  thats why
> it is not in 2553.

The API is informational document anyway.  It would be nice is this kind
of implementation gotcha's would be noted (no need to force a "proper"
behaviour) so all people would realize a possible problem area. :-)

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------