Subject: (IPng 7185) sockaddr_storage nit

From: Craig Metz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 15:25:38 -0500

The spec fails to name the first two fields:

   - It has the initial field(s) isomorphic to the fields of the
     "struct sockaddr" data structure on that implementation which
     can be used as a discriminants for deriving the protocol in use.
     These initial field(s) would on most implementations either be a
     single field of type "sa_family_t" (isomorphic to sa_family field,
     16 bits) or two fields of type uint8_t and sa_family_t respectively,
     (isomorphic to sa_len and sa_family_t, 8 bits each).

  So there's no requirement that you even use the names given in the example,
which is bad.

  I propose that this second paragraph be amended with:

  The family field is named "ss_family," and the length field, if present, is
named "ss_len."

  Note that this is also a change from the example (and, I'm guessing, what
people have implemented), which names them __ss_family and __ss_len. The entire
point of having those fields in the structure is for the basic sockaddr
preamble fields to be accessable without a cast. Therefore, they should not be
"hidden."

									-Craig

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 10:39:26 -0500

Craig,

I have reviewed your request and feel the upcoming XNET IPv6 Base API
doc can address it.  Our Base API spec is frozen and will have a new RFC
number anyday.  The sockaddr_storage for most is informational only and
folks can alter as they need.  

So unless we hear overwhelming statements from the WG implementors I do
not think we need to make this change to the TBD RFC for this API.

p.s. Chris Harding - Can this be addressed by XNET and can you connect
with Craig offline?

/jim

---

From: Craig Metz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 14:23:46 -0500

>p.s. Chris Harding - Can this be addressed by XNET and can you connect

  Speaking as a non-vendor implementor on a tight budget, POSIX and TOG specs
are, as a whole, not accessable to me and therefore I don't write code from
them. Especially when there is a freely available document that describes the
same feature set. Having the freely available documentation of this API and the
TOG version of this API out of sync seems to be a recipe for disaster.

  I understand the pressures not to change the spec at this point. I hate to
see the spec change at this point. But this piece of the spec is broken, and
it either gets fixed or we have an interoperability problem (which is what the
spec is supposed to solve). If what you're saying is that interoperability is
not important, then I can just do my thing without further concern as to
whether code I add IPv6 support to will run on your implementation.

  The good news here is, as you have observed, that few people if anyone
actually use sockaddr_storage, which means that it can probably be done without
requiring a lot of work. Is there anyone out there for whom this change would
affect more than removing two or four underscores from a header file? For those
in that set, is there anything more than a quick Perl script needed to s//g
some sources?

									-Craig

---

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <[email-masked]>
Date: 17 Feb 1999 17:37:22 -0500

Craig Metz <[email-masked]> writes:
> are, as a whole, not accessable to me

Actually, that isn't true. If you register, you can see all of the
Open Group's XPG documents on line off their web site. I do this all
the time.

On the other hand, I agree with you that having a set of accurate
specs available officially for free would be a really big win, and...

> Having the freely available documentation of this API and the

...I also agree with this. We should have *consistent* docs, and
having this nit fixed will also make for more interoperable apps.

Perry

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 23:18:34 -0500

Folks,

I am not changing the spec.  It stands as is.  I got to hear from a lot
of folks to make this change.  I do not feel it is an interoperability
problem either.  All the impelementors checked this out and it was quite
a lengthy discussion to get where we are and there we defined reaons for
__sslen, et al.  

If the chairs want to poke me on this that is fine.

If this did need a change I would suggest we remove the entire 3.10
section from the Base API spec and if XNET wants it they can keep it.

sorry,
/jim

---

From: Chris Harding <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 10:01:01 +0000

>Open Group's XPG documents on line off their web site. I do this all
You can register for and access the current published version of the
networking services spec at http://www.opengroup.org/pubs/catalog/c523.htm
(the IPv6 stuff isn't in this version, it will be in the next published
version).

>having this nit fixed will also make for more interoperable apps.
You can also get to the current draft of the spec. This is what we
are currently working on. It will probably result in a new published
version round about the end of this year. It contains the IPv6
material plus other changes that have been agreed. This draft
plus the changes to it that are currently proposed are on the web
at http://www.opengroup.org/orc/DOCS/XNS/ and they are FREELY
AVAILABLE.

Once the dust has settled on your sockaddr_storage proposal this
will be posted as a proposed change. If you want to, you can post
it yourself (I did think of asking you to do this but then thought
I'd save you the trouble).

XNET does NOT want to restrict access to its specs. On the contrary,
it WANTS to encourage comments from ALL interested parties.

Regards,

Chris
+++++

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Chris Harding
  T H E    Development Manager
 O P E N   Apex Plaza, Forbury Road, Reading RG1 1AX, UK
G R O U P  Mailto:[email-masked]   Ph: +44 118 950 8311 x2262
           WWW: http://www.opengroup.org    Fx: +44 118 950 0110  

OSF/1, Motif, UNIX and the "X" device are registered trademarks in
the US and other countries, and IT DialTone and The Open Group are
trademarks of The Open Group.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 11:59:07 -0500

Chris,

This is great.  Forget my idea about an updated info rfc in my mail to
Craig.  As long as all this is available as you stated that is not
needed and only a duplication of work.

thanks
/jim