Let me see if I can remember the reasons I had for removing the array. 1. It would make the structure declaration similar to the rest of extension headers.
2. 2292 and early 2292bis defined the array of size 1, but it is valid to have a routing header with 0 segleft and no IPv6 addresses. This corner case caused a bunch of small problems for implementations that the new definition avoided. 3. Not all compilers understood flexible array member. It also caused some confusion from users expecting sizeof() to be different. Additionally 2292bis has some other incompatibilities with 2292 this one being the least of the problems. So that argument doesn't fly. -vlad Michael Hunter wrote: > On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 22:00:56 +0900 > JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] > >>I didn't remember the reason why the member name was removed, so I >>found it from the web. You'll get the answer from the discussion >>starting at the following URL: >> >>http://www.wcug.wwu.edu/lists/ipng/199908/msg00128.html >> >>According to the discussion, there seemed to be a clear consensus on >>the removal (though this may not be regarded as a "strong reason"). > > > poster + > 1 FAM preferred (removal next) > 1 removal > 1 its nice to have the array member > 1 but I don't need the array member > > I'm not sure what the overall membership of the interested parties was > but that doesn't sound like a large sample. > > [...] > >>Another thought: most user applications are expected to use >>inet6_rth_xxx functions, instead of directly getting access to the >>address part following the rthdr[0] structure. Thus, either 1 nor 2 >>affects the typical user applications. > > > So why create incompatibilities with 2292 if you expect the feature > being broken to be used less in the future? Whats the gain? > > [...] > >>Having thought all of this, I still prefer the current 2292bis >>definition. (I personally could live with (2), but I prefer (1) over >>(2) because we had a clear consensus on this.) >> >>Can we agree on this, or do we need more discussion? > > > I'm not buying the reasons I've seen so far for this incompatibility > with 2292. I believe you need a reason other then "its ugly" to break > users code. > > mph > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Vladislav Yasevich Tru64 UNIX - IPv6 Project Lead Hewlett Packard Tel: (603) 884-1079 Nashua, NH 03062 ZKO3-3/T07 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
