IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [core] CoAP Implementation Guidance and IPV6_RECVERR

Christian Amsüss <christian@amsuess.com> Tue, 10 March 2020 16:55 UTC

Return-Path: <christian@amsuess.com>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F86A3A16AB; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 09:55:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.624
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.624 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.274, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4YREq2QpIUWS; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 09:55:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from prometheus.amsuess.com (alt.prometheus.amsuess.com [IPv6:2a01:4f8:190:3064::3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73DC33A1695; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 09:55:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from poseidon-mailhub.amsuess.com (095129206250.cust.akis.net [95.129.206.250]) by prometheus.amsuess.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3138740028; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 17:55:05 +0100 (CET)
Received: from poseidon-mailbox.amsuess.com (hermes.amsuess.com [10.13.13.254]) by poseidon-mailhub.amsuess.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C11BBDB; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 17:55:04 +0100 (CET)
Received: from hephaistos.amsuess.com (unknown [IPv6:2a02:b18:c13b:8010:29c1:94b7:fce6:3020]) by poseidon-mailbox.amsuess.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 93B36148; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 17:55:04 +0100 (CET)
Received: (nullmailer pid 235074 invoked by uid 1000); Tue, 10 Mar 2020 16:55:04 -0000
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 17:55:04 +0100
From: Christian Amsüss <christian@amsuess.com>
To: core@ietf.org, lwip@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20200310165504.GA235006@hephaistos.amsuess.com>
References: <20200310165322.GA226328@hephaistos.amsuess.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="KsGdsel6WgEHnImy"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200310165322.GA226328@hephaistos.amsuess.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/fVwJ6DVXpgY-O9dG1fz7mhFzE7s>
Subject: Re: [core] CoAP Implementation Guidance and IPV6_RECVERR
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 16:55:11 -0000

Hello CoRE and LWIG,

(retransmitting as I missed the LWIG list name oddity, please reply to
this to keep the thread intact)

working on the portability of my aiocoap library I had trouble reusing
the IPV6_RECVERR option recommended in draft-ietf-lwig-coap-06[1], and
found that it does not seem to be portable at all; unlike the
IPV6_RECVPKTINFO option recommended in the paragraph above, IPV6_RECVERR
is only mentioned in the IETF scope in this document, and otherwise
appears to be proprietary to Linux.

Is that a known shortcoming? Are there any more portable mechanisms that
can be recommended instead?

Best regards
Christian

[1]: I see has expired -- is there interest in having this continued? It
     has been valuable so far

-- 
To use raw power is to make yourself infinitely vulnerable to greater powers.
  -- Bene Gesserit axiom

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email