Subject: Re: getnameinfo(3) behavior on short string region

From: David Borman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 09:22:07 -0600 (CST)

Jim,

> From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: getnameinfo(3) behavior on short string region 
> Date: Thu, 04 Nov 1999 09:15:03 -0500
> ...
> I believe Dave's response is correct (thx Dave).  But I want to point
> out that we (the IETF) have no control over getnameinfo or getaddrinfo
> it is a POSIX and XNET issue.  This is why we did not touch nor
> extend these APIs from Info rfc2133 to rfc2553.  I suggest if you or

You are forgetting that only the getaddrinfo() function was taken from
POSIX 1003.1g, not getnameinfo().  RFC2133/2553 is the definition of
getnameinfo().  From page 29 of RFC 2553:

   The POSIX 1003.1g specification includes no function to perform the
   reverse conversion from getaddrinfo(): to look up a nodename and
   service name, given the binary address and port.  Therefore, we
   define the following function:

So while RFC2553 deferes to POSIX for the definition of getaddrinfo(),
we do have control over getnameinfo(), and can correct the definition
as we see fit.

			-David Borman, [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 04 Nov 1999 11:05:33 -0500

good point dave... I think getnameinfo should be given to XNET then.

/jim