Re: in6_pktinfo etc still missing in POSIX specs

[Thomas Narten <narten at us.ibm.com>]

I'm not involved in this in detail, so I may be off base, but my
understanding is that the advanced API has not been picked up by Open
Group because its members didn't support doing so -- they just didn't
see a need to.

My own take is that standardization of the advanced API just isn't
compelling. When I did a survey in the past of what various vendors
had done with the advanced API, I found that none implemented it
completely. Rather, most implemented bits and pieces of it depending
on what applications needed the funcitonality (or just implemented
private versions for the applications that needed the
functionality). And since the functionality in the adnvanced API (by
definition) isn't needed accept by fairly exotic uFrom ipv6-bounces at ietf.org  Tue Oct 14 09:24:04 2008
Return-Path: <ipv6-bounces at ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6-archive at megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipv6-archive at core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E7AF3A6B3D;
	Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:24:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ipv6 at core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6 at core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E75F3A6B3D
	for <ipv6 at core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:24:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.399
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[AWL=-1.800, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32])
	by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id byZ7acJGBHcS for <ipv6 at core3.amsl.com>;
	Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:24:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from e8.ny.us.ibm.com (e8.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.138])
	by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EC073A659A
	for <ipv6 at ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 09:24:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234])
	by e8.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m9EGLE3x022444
	for <ipv6 at ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:21:14 -0400
Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (d01av01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.215])
	by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.1) with ESMTP id
	m9EGOBmv237042 for <ipv6 at ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:24:11 -0400
Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1])
	by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id
	m9EGOBrn026207 for <ipv6 at ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:24:11 -0400
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-49-148-164.mts.ibm.com
	[9.49.148.164])
	by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id
	m9EGO9Yn026101
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
	Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:24:11 -0400
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com [127.0.0.1])
	by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.2/8.12.5) with ESMTP id m9EGO8uY019875;
	Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:24:09 -0400
Message-Id: <200810141624.m9EGO8uY019875 at cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: Pekka Savola <pekkas at netcore.fi>
Subject: Re: in6_pktinfo etc still missing in POSIX specs
In-reply-to: <alpine.LRH.2.00.0810141538010.27169 at netcore.fi>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.00.0810141538010.27169 at netcore.fi>
Comments: In-reply-to Pekka Savola <pekkas at netcore.fi>
	message dated "Tue, 14 Oct 2008 15:47:13 +0300."
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:24:08 -0400
From: Thomas Narten <narten at us.ibm.com>
Cc: ipv6 at ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6 at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>,
	<mailto:ipv6-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6 at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>,
	<mailto:ipv6-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ipv6-bounces at ietf.org
Errors-To: ipv6-bounces at ietf.org

I'm not involved in this in detail, so I may be off base, but my
understanding is that the advanced API has not been picked up by Open
Group because its members didn't support doing so -- they just didn't
see a need to.

My own take is that standardization of the advanced API just isn't
compelling. When I did a survey in the past of what various vendors
had done with the advanced API, I found that none implemented it
completely. Rather, most implemented bits and pieces of it depending
on what applications needed the funcitonality (or just implemented
private versions for the applications that needed the
functionality). And since the functionality in the adnvanced API (by
definition) isn't needed accept by fairly exotic usages, isages, it's hard to
make the arguement that it needs to be implemented for basic
interoperability.

Thomas
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6 at ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------


t's hard to
make the arguement that it needs to be implemented for basic
interoperability.

Thomas
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6 at ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------