Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ipngwg-scopedaddr-format-00.txt

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 14:24:51 -0500

In message <[email-masked]>, Francis Dupont writes:
>(This is not an answer to Brian's mail)
>
>I believe we know what is the problem, the whole set of solutions
>but we still need a way to not break the API (and keep Jim happy :-).
>
>Then my proposal is to introduce a compilation flag, undefined by default,
>which should be defined before netdb.h and arpa/inet.h includes.
>If the flag is not defined current state aplies.
>If the flag is defined then getipnodebyname(), inet_pton(), ...
>deal with scope IDs too.
>

Personally, I find it very ugly and hard to maintain, especially across 
multiple platforms where the mechanism for setting that flag may be different.

		--Steve Bellovin

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 21:54:48 +0100

In your previous mail you wrote:

   Personally, I find it very ugly

=> I agree, this is ugly but some of them *don't* want to update the API.

   and hard to maintain, especially across multiple platforms where
   the mechanism for setting that flag may be different.
   
=> I don't understand your concern. I propose to optionally add
#define before some #include. Of course the name of the flag
will be the same everywhere (if nobody finds something better :-).
Perhaps you'd prefer (??) to add a -Dxxx in CFLAGS in Makefiles?

Regards

[email-masked]

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 17:10:03 -0500

should we at least have a discussion of changing hostent structure so
its backwards compatible?

The reason I ask is that I would love to get a TTL for each address too
as a side benefit?????

/jim

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 14:54:37 +0100

=> this was in a previous version of the API and I like this too!

[email-masked]