Re: sockets APIs extensions for Host Identity Protocol

Miika Komu <miika@iki.fi> Thu, 10 May 2007 18:48 UTC

Return-path: <discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HmDgo-0007YM-7d; Thu, 10 May 2007 14:48:34 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HlXOC-00024p-ML for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 08 May 2007 17:38:32 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HlXOC-00024f-Cn for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 08 May 2007 17:38:32 -0400
Received: from twilight.cs.hut.fi ([130.233.40.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HlXO8-0006yQ-LK for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 08 May 2007 17:38:32 -0400
Received: by twilight.cs.hut.fi (Postfix, from userid 60001) id 05D472CF1; Wed, 9 May 2007 00:38:25 +0300 (EEST)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.0-niksula20070322 (2007-05-01) on twilight.cs.hut.fi
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.2.0-niksula20070322
X-Spam-Niksula: No
Received: from kekkonen.cs.hut.fi (kekkonen.cs.hut.fi [130.233.41.50]) by twilight.cs.hut.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 424282CEF; Wed, 9 May 2007 00:38:24 +0300 (EEST)
Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 00:38:24 +0300
From: Miika Komu <miika@iki.fi>
X-X-Sender: mkomu@kekkonen.cs.hut.fi
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
Subject: Re: sockets APIs extensions for Host Identity Protocol
In-Reply-To: <20070507082737.GB21759@nic.fr>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.64.0705090030440.18946@kekkonen.cs.hut.fi>
References: <Pine.SOL.4.64.0705041801060.14418@kekkonen.cs.hut.fi> <20070507082737.GB21759@nic.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 97adf591118a232206bdb5a27b217034
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 10 May 2007 14:48:33 -0400
Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org
X-BeenThere: discuss@apps.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols <discuss.apps.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:discuss@apps.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org

On Mon, 7 May 2007, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

Hi Stephane and thanks for your comments,

> On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 06:28:30PM +0300,
> Miika Komu <miika@iki.fi> wrote
> a message of 27 lines which said:
>
>> One could conceive that such a level of indirection could be used
>> more generally outside of HIP, to enable applications to be more
>> compatible across IP versions, for instance.
>
> One important thing: this is only for the C programming language. In
> most (all?) other languages, programmers no longer handle directly IP
> addresses and thus are shielded from things like IPv4 vs. IPv6 or
> addresses vs. handles.

Yes, that is true.

>> This latter observation makes me wonder whether there have been such
>> considerations previously in the applications area?
>
> The big advice should be: use a high-level language (or, in C, a
> high-level library, like Neon - http://www.webdav.org/neon/ - or cURL
> - http://curl.haxx.se/) and you're safe from the changes in IETF
> fashions.

The higher-level languages are always based on the C-language sockets API. 
Would it make sense to make the modification to a single place (sockets 
API) rather than all of the present programming language implementations? 
The latter is, of course, better than modifying all applications.

-- 
Miika Komu                                       http://www.iki.fi/miika/