Erik Nordmark wrote: > > I saw an issue in the list for which I have a comment. The issue is > djr-02 4.4.3.3 If it is possible that some protocols will or will > want to > support an unbind, isn't it better to provide sd_unbind() rather > than rely on a magic combination of paramters to sd_bind()? > > > I think it is unwise to provide a sd_unbind (or a sd_disconnect for > that matter). The reason is that there isn't a matching unbind or > disconnect socket system call, and different protocols can actually > make a different interpretation of what type of parameters to a bind() > should be interpreted as semantically being an unbind operation. > > Given that there are opensource communities which develop new > protocols and new mappings to socket semantics specifically for those > protocols, the less semantic interpretation we make in the socket > layer the better. The more interpretation we do the harder it might > become to port such new protocols to Solaris. > > Thus while TCP, UDP, and RAW inet/inet6 sockets have a common > interpretation of what consistutes an unbind, I don't expect other and > future protocols to have the same. > > Today Erik thanks for your comments. The project team provided similar reasoning for not adding unbind and disconnect, however after the review we have added these functions. Based on Erik's comments if no one objects by Spet 7th we will remove these downcalls.
Rao.
