Sebastien Roy wrote:
>  | inet_cidr_ntop       | Volatile              | Undocumented          |
>  | inet_cidr_ntop       | Volatile              | Undocumented          |
>  | inet_nsap_addr       | Volatile              | Undocumented          |
>  | inet_nsap_ntoa       | Volatile              | Undocumented          |
>  | inet_cidr_pton       | Volatile              | Documented[5]         |
>  | inet_neta            | Volatile              | Documented[5]         |

Why are those last two treated the same as the others?  They appear to
be intended to be used as programming interfaces by ordinary
applications, and seem to be useful interfaces.  Why should they be
marked as "Volatile?"  Are they in fact likely to change in incompatible
ways?

> Even though ISC defines the above interfaces in public header files it does 
> not
> provide any documentation for most of the interfaces. We can not guarantee 
> the semantics and hence we are making no attempt to document these functions.
> This is similar to what was done in previous update PSARC 1999/662.

That case isn't publicly visible, but at least with the BIND server
cases, I recall that we intentionally segregated the interfaces based on
how they were documented upstream -- treating undocumented interfaces
and those documented not to be used as Volatile (or worse), and the rest
as Uncommitted or better.

Does Volatile really match with the upstream behavior and the downstream
usage?  Or is it just a replay of "external?"

-- 
James Carlson         42.703N 71.076W         <carlsonj at workingcode.com>

Reply via email to