Re: getnameinfo and various protocol types

2003-12-11 Thread Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > my proposal: > > define NI_UDP as replacement of NI_DGRAM. deprecate NI_DGRAM (keep > > it as an alias to NI_UDP is okay). define NI_SCTP, NI_DCCP and such. > > these three are mutually exclusive, and if more than one is specified > > it would cause EAI_FAIL. >

Re: getnameinfo and various protocol types

2003-12-11 Thread Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
> Hi Itojun, > > my proposal: > > define NI_UDP as replacement of NI_DGRAM. deprecate NI_DGRAM (keep > > it as an alias to NI_UDP is okay). define NI_SCTP, NI_DCCP and such. > > these three are mutually exclusive, and if more than one is specified > > it would cause EAI_FAIL.

Re: getnameinfo and various protocol types

2003-12-11 Thread Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
> Agree! I assume "and such" implies that NI_TCP will be defined too, > which is still the default if nothing is specified in the call (for > backward compatibility?) yup, NI_TCP would have a value of 0 and is still a default. itojun -

Re: getnameinfo and various protocol types

2003-12-11 Thread Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
> > now we have couple of new transport protocols coming, such as SCTP and > > DCCP. how can we support service name lookup for those? i.e. > > how can we tell getnameinfo(3) to use "sctp" or "dccp" for the 2nd > > argument of getservbyport(3)? > > > > my proposal: > >

Re: getnameinfo and various protocol types

2003-12-11 Thread Erik Nordmark
> now we have couple of new transport protocols coming, such as SCTP and > DCCP. how can we support service name lookup for those? i.e. > how can we tell getnameinfo(3) to use "sctp" or "dccp" for the 2nd > argument of getservbyport(3)? > > my proposal: >

RE: getnameinfo and various protocol types

2003-12-11 Thread Bound, Jim
We should do this as addendum to 3493 for sure. /jim > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 3:44 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: getnameinfo and various protocol types > > >

Re: getnameinfo and various protocol types

2003-12-11 Thread Peter Lei
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: getnameinfo(3) specification assumes that there are only two transport protocols - tcp and udp. when performing service name lookup it would use "tcp" if NI_DGRAM is not specified, and "udp" when NI_DGRAM is specified. now we have co

Re: getnameinfo and various protocol types

2003-12-11 Thread Suresh Krishnan
Hi Itojun, > my proposal: > define NI_UDP as replacement of NI_DGRAM. deprecate NI_DGRAM (keep > it as an alias to NI_UDP is okay). define NI_SCTP, NI_DCCP and such. > these three are mutually exclusive, and if more than one is specified > it would cause EAI_FAIL.

Re: getnameinfo and various protocol types

2003-12-11 Thread Andrew White
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > my proposal: > define NI_UDP as replacement of NI_DGRAM. deprecate NI_DGRAM (keep > it as an alias to NI_UDP is okay). define NI_SCTP, NI_DCCP and such. > these three are mutually exclusive, and if more than one is specified > it would cause EAI_FAIL. And define NI_

getnameinfo and various protocol types

2003-12-11 Thread itojun
getnameinfo(3) specification assumes that there are only two transport protocols - tcp and udp. when performing service name lookup it would use "tcp" if NI_DGRAM is not specified, and "udp" when NI_DGRAM is specified. now we have couple of new transport pr