On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 08:41, Bob Hinden wrote:
> >Removing it, thus would mean that all these applications are broken and
> >need to be updated, which actually is true, having that programs should
> >use multiple sockets and use getaddrinfo() to figure out the correct
> >sockets to bind on. This has some programming overhead though and as
> >many people are lazy they did not do it.
>
> I am not sure they would be broken. They would be doing something in
> addition to what is in the new RFC.
They should not be removed from a new version of the spec without a mention
in the newer version about *why* they were removed.
If we do not have consensus in this WG about why we want to remove them, we will
cause eternal confusion for OS and application implementors downstream.
(And I'm actually aware of at least one feature in the solaris IP stack which
is
supposedly available for UDP/IPv4 traffic through AF_INET6 sockets which is not
conveniently available through AF_INET sockets. Long story ...)
- Bill
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
