Subject: Re: Textual Address Change for Scope-IDs

From: Tim Hartrick <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 17:53:06 -0800 (PST)

Jim,

> what do others think???  

I am convinced that some additional textual notation is required.
I thought so when we had the last jihad on scoped addresses.  The issue
just got drowned out in all the other discussion.  I have not yet formed
an opinion as to what that notation should be.

> I will go with consensus as always...
> 
> but I don't wnat to change inet_ntop or inet_pton 
>

In my opinion the interfaces to these two routines can and should remain
the same.  The code which implements inet_pton might need to be enhanced
to parse over the scope-id notation.  That could be left to vendors'
descretion since not all vendors need to support the notation immediately.
 
> if we go down this path we need new apis.
>

Probably.
 
> but thats Ok as I already know I am going to have to do update to
> rfc2553 I think... but we can't break existing implementations when it
> happens.
>

That would be the goal.  Clearly, breaking binaries is bad.
 
> I will bring up roberts idea again when we discuss eriks site prefix
> draft.
> 

I kind of wish you wouldn't since it was such a lovely cat fight when we
discussed this three years ago and discarded it as an option.:-)

Tim Hartrick
Mentat Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 22:59:49 -0500

thanks tim...

Not sure any of this should ever affect existing inet_nt/pt functions.

if we can revisit the api yet again we can revisit roberts idea :--).

It may make revisiting the api easier :---)....

Or we could just bag site local addresses in ipv6 then we would have to
not revisit either api or roberts idea :---)

/jim