Re: draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2553bis-05: getnameinfo() arguments
>> Stay tuned, Technical Corrigenda 1 (TC1) for 1003.1-2001 is >> active right now, I hope to have this fixed in TC1. > >I didn't occur to me to look there earlier (shame on me), but I just >noticed your Aardvarks on that subject; unfortunately they (XBD ERN >24, XSH ERN 22) were rejected at the May meeting. In any case, I'll >be watching austin-group-l. Yup. But we have a few more days before the results are finalized, to "take issue with any decisions of the review team". - Jack 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]
Re: draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2553bis-05: getnameinfo() arguments
Jack McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The 'unsigned' flags argument occurred at some point during > the incorporation of the IPv6 API into the Open Group's > Networking Services issue 5.2 spec in 1999, and was propagated > from there into the posix 1003.1-2001 spec. We've been looking > back at archives to see how this change was introduced, but > have not completed the e-paper trail yet. FWIW, I went through my collection of C808 drafts and found the `unsigned' argument appeared with the introduction of getnameinfo() in D3.0. Unfortunately no e-paper trail over here either; I've never been an XNET participant. > >From what I can tell, most implementations have implemented > type 'int' as per the RFC, including Solaris, Windows XP, AIX, > Tru64 UNIX, HP-UX, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, and OpenVMS. The only > implementation I have seen that uses 'unsigned int' is GNU libc, > which originally implemented using type 'int', but which changed > to 'unsigned int' in January 2001 (I speculate this was done to > align with XNS 5.2 or perhaps one of the early drafts of 1003.1-2001). > > Given the widespread implementation of 'int', I believe the > right thing to do is get the posix spec changed, and leave > rfc2553bis as is. Actually, I did switch NetBSD over to `unsigned int' the other day; however, that and the amount of prior art (my survey didn't cover quite that much) are good reasons to reconsider this (same is true for the Austin Group). > Stay tuned, Technical Corrigenda 1 (TC1) for 1003.1-2001 is > active right now, I hope to have this fixed in TC1. I didn't occur to me to look there earlier (shame on me), but I just noticed your Aardvarks on that subject; unfortunately they (XBD ERN 24, XSH ERN 22) were rejected at the May meeting. In any case, I'll be watching austin-group-l. - Klaus 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]
Re: draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2553bis-05: getnameinfo() arguments
>While making a related change in NetBSD I noticed that although >getnameinfo() was correctly aligned with POSIX with respect to size_t >vs. socklen_t, it was apparently missed to change its `flags' argument >from int to unsigned int as part of that edit. Yes, I noticed this discrepancy between posix and rfc2553 about a year ago, and have been actively trying to "fix" the posix spec in this regard. The 'unsigned' flags argument occurred at some point during the incorporation of the IPv6 API into the Open Group's Networking Services issue 5.2 spec in 1999, and was propagated from there into the posix 1003.1-2001 spec. We've been looking back at archives to see how this change was introduced, but have not completed the e-paper trail yet. >From what I can tell, most implementations have implemented type 'int' as per the RFC, including Solaris, Windows XP, AIX, Tru64 UNIX, HP-UX, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, and OpenVMS. The only implementation I have seen that uses 'unsigned int' is GNU libc, which originally implemented using type 'int', but which changed to 'unsigned int' in January 2001 (I speculate this was done to align with XNS 5.2 or perhaps one of the early drafts of 1003.1-2001). Given the widespread implementation of 'int', I believe the right thing to do is get the posix spec changed, and leave rfc2553bis as is. Stay tuned, Technical Corrigenda 1 (TC1) for 1003.1-2001 is active right now, I hope to have this fixed in TC1. - Jack 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]
draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2553bis-05: getnameinfo() arguments
While making a related change in NetBSD I noticed that although getnameinfo() was correctly aligned with POSIX with respect to size_t vs. socklen_t, it was apparently missed to change its `flags' argument from int to unsigned int as part of that edit. - Klaus 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]
