Subject: RE: Textual Address Change for Scope-IDs

From: Brian Zill <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 01:14:42 -0800

> From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
> 
> If one should add a scope-id to the address
> in a string representation as you suggest
> it no longer is an IPv6 Address by any standard
> we have today.  Hence, it should have its own
> API for parsing.  This should not be a change
> to the APIs that work with IPv6 addresses.

So as long as we retain the current behavior of inet_pton, inet_ntop,
getipnodebyaddr and getipnodebyname for backwards compatibility with
existing deployed applications, you'll be happy?  Or at least quit
complaining?

--Brian
       
> /jim
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 14:43:52 -0500

Brian,

>existing deployed applications, you'll be happy?  Or at least quit

I resent your coment using the word "complaining".  But will not say
more and will let you imagine what I want to say to you.

I am discussing an issue with you and others.

I have no problem changing anything as long as its well thought out and
will work and is considerate of what has been deployed.

/jim