[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF independence



I think having an appendix with issues and documenting them makes sense
too.


/jim
"Shout it out G.L.O.R.I.A." (Them [Van Morrison])


On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Pekka Savola wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Jim Bound wrote:
> > and it should not but an implementation that does not permit this is not
> > optimal.  we cannot force this behavior on implementors either.  thats why
> > it is not in 2553.
> 
> The API is informational document anyway.  It would be nice is this kind
> of implementation gotcha's would be noted (no need to force a "proper"
> behaviour) so all people would realize a possible problem area. :-)
> 
> -- 
> Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
> Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
> Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
> 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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 majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------