Re: in6_pktinfo etc still missing in POSIX specs

Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org> Wed, 15 October 2008 01:07 UTC

Return-Path: <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipv6-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF0753A67C0; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 18:07:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CDFE3A6B2E for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 18:07:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.43
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.43 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.169, 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 Kka1Dy3wgbkW for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 18:07:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (drugs.dv.isc.org [IPv6:2001:470:1f00:820:214:22ff:fed9:fbdc]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8AB93A63EC for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Oct 2008 18:07:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by drugs.dv.isc.org (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id m9F18m6A010728; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:08:48 +1100 (EST) (envelope-from marka@drugs.dv.isc.org)
Message-Id: <200810150108.m9F18m6A010728@drugs.dv.isc.org>
To: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
From: Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org>
Subject: Re: in6_pktinfo etc still missing in POSIX specs
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:24:08 EDT." <200810141624.m9EGO8uY019875@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:08:48 +1100
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org, Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@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@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org

In message <200810141624.m9EGO8uY019875@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>, Thomas Narten
 writes:
> 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.

	One shouldn't have to have OS specific knowledge to write
	IPv6 code.  Failure of POSIX to ratify the advanced API is
	causing that to happen.  This is not conjecture.  It is fact.

	We need more standisation not less.

	The following was just committed to the BIND sources.

2463.   [port]          linux: POSIX doesn't include the IPv6 Advanced Socket
                        API and glibc hides parts of the IPv6 Advanced Socket
                        API as a result.  This is stupid as it breaks how the
                        two halves (Basic and Advanced) of the IPv6 Socket API                          were designed to be used but we have to live with it.
                        Define _GNU_SOURCE to pull in the IPv6 Advanced Socket
                        API. [RT #18388]

> 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, it's hard to
> make the arguement that it needs to be implemented for basic
> interoperability.
> 
> Thomas
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews@isc.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------