>>>>> On Fri, 12 Apr 2002 06:49:54 -0700,
>>>>> Toerless Eckert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> My concern was to change the default. Your text below seem
> to indicate this, so it would solve my concern. As far as your
> text is concerned, I would love to see more explicitly the sentence
> "the default setting of this option for a socket is -1". In addition,
> i would strongly recommend to call this the "API default" instead of the
> "kernel default", because "kernel default" sounds as if it is up to the
> kernel to decide what the default is (i.e.: i am worried that some kernel
> developer could think that he can decide what to do in the -1 case). But
> that's probably just me being paranoid.
Okay, I don't have any problem with using the term "API default."
> Beside this, i would just argue that psychologically i'd love to see
> the differentiation UNICAST/MULTICAST to show up in the API parameters
> explicitly to help developes think about the difference, but that's just
> cosmetic. I agree with you that just a _MULTICAST_ option like Eric sugested
> is a bit confusing, but i have no strong opinions here. The real advantage
> of NOT using IPV6_USE_MIN_MTU is to catch the hopefully small/non-existing
> number of applications who already think that the value 0 to it is the
> default and thus set it.
Then you seem to agree with my proposal (thanks). What about you,
Erik? If you're okay too, I'll soon update the draft according to
the proposal.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
