In your previous mail you wrote:

   >        The following flags are added for the ai_flags in addrinfo data
   >        structure defined in Basic IPv6 Socket API Extension [2].
   >    
   >         AI_PREFER_SRC_HOME
   >         AI_PREFER_SRC_COA
   >         AI_PREFER_SRC_TMP
   >         AI_PREFER_SRC_PUBLIC
   >         AI_PREFER_SRC_CGA
   >         AI_PREFER_SRC_NONCGA
   >           
   > => why _SRC_ ?
   
   To try to make it clearer that the application can't express this type
   of preferences for the destination addresses.
       
=> I understand now: you must make this crystal clear in the document!

   >    7. Open Issues
   >    
   >       - Are there more flags we should define at this point in time?
   >         For instance, PREFER_LARGEST_SCOPE?
   >    
   > => all "matter of taste" rules of address selection which cannot be
   > controlled through the policy table should be covered here.
   
   Do you have a list handy?
   
=> it seems that someone should reread RFC 3484 very carefully.
I'll try to do it if I get enough free time...

   >       - Is there a need for REQUIRE flags in addition to or instead of the
   >         PREFER flags?
   > 
   > => yes, in some cases it is very important.
   
   Any concerns about where and when the failures due to lack of
   an address satisfying the REQUIREs?
   
=> EADDRNOTAVAIL on bind(), connect(), sendto(), etc. (i.e.,
all system calls which directly or indirectly assign a source address).

   >         Note that in general it isn't possible to verify 
   >         that a requirement can be satisfied until sendto() or connect()
   >         (when the destination address is known) thus this would result
   >         in late errors being reported to the application.
   >    
   > => this is not really true because an application can use a connect()
   > to verify the selected source but as I am against any changes in
   > application I agree with the conclusion.
   
   I don't understand what you are suggesting to change in the document
   with respect to this.
   Care to elaborate?
   
=> I disagree only about the rationale, so I propose to remove the statement
which begins by "Note".

Thanks

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

Reply via email to