>>>>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 19:05:14 +0900,
>>>>> JINMEI Tatuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> How the unspecified address is treated by the forwarding code is orthogonal
>> to how applications make use of it to specify which connections or datagrams
>> are received on a socket.
> Okay, and I think this also means we should separate architecture (or
> protocol) issues and API issues more clearly. So, I'd propose:
> in the architecture draft, clarify that the form of
> <address>%<zone ID> is intended to be used for disambiguating scoped
> addresses (that have ambiguity) and that the format should not be
> used for global addresses or addresses that do not have scope (i.e.,
> ::).
> (but this does not mean it prohibits an implementation -particularly
> an API- from using the format for global addresses or for :: in an
> implementation dependent manner.)
(snip)
> Does this make sense to you?
The list has been too quiet to make a decision (perhaps just due to
holidays?), but I'm going to revise the draft this week, along with
the proposal above.
If anyone of you have a strong objection, please speak up now.
Thanks,
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
