IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: sockets APIs extensions for Host Identity Protocol

Miika Komu <miika@iki.fi> Fri, 11 May 2007 20:52 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 1Hmc6G-0007Y3-9T; Fri, 11 May 2007 16:52:28 -0400
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Hmc6E-0007Xt-JY for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 11 May 2007 16:52:26 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hmc6E-0007Xj-9O for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Fri, 11 May 2007 16:52:26 -0400
Received: from twilight.cs.hut.fi ([130.233.40.5]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hmc6C-0008DJ-Vs for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Fri, 11 May 2007 16:52:26 -0400
Received: by twilight.cs.hut.fi (Postfix, from userid 60001) id 8885F2CE0; Fri, 11 May 2007 23:52:24 +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 228422CBC; Fri, 11 May 2007 23:52:22 +0300 (EEST)
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 23:52:22 +0300 (EEST)
From: Miika Komu <miika@iki.fi>
X-X-Sender: mkomu@kekkonen.cs.hut.fi
To: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
Subject: Re: sockets APIs extensions for Host Identity Protocol
In-Reply-To: <200705111642.MAA19058@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.64.0705112240480.8816@kekkonen.cs.hut.fi>
References: <Pine.SOL.4.64.0705041801060.14418@kekkonen.cs.hut.fi> <20070507082737.GB21759@nic.fr> <46413DD7.8020702@cs.utk.edu> <20070509121703.GA21070@nic.fr> <4641CA52.70504@cs.utk.edu> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705091449360.26169@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk> <4641D94C.9070304@cs.utk.edu> <Pine.SOL.4.64.0705102013550.10049@kekkonen.cs.hut.fi> <46436B10.5090706@cs.utk.edu> <Pine.SOL.4.64.0705102159020.10049@kekkonen.cs.hut.fi> <4643F873.3000501@cs.utk.edu> <Pine.SOL.4.64.0705110851440.24038@kekkonen.cs.hut.fi> <46442588.7020405@cs.utk.edu> <200705111314.JAA17866@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> <4644830D.7050302@cs.utk.edu> <200705111642.MAA19058@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370
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 Fri, 11 May 2007, der Mouse wrote:

> The rest of your points - including the pieces I cut from the oens I
> did address specifically - seem to fall into two categories: "no clear
> agreed-upon spec" and "buggy implementations are common".  While these
> are fair answers to my question, neither one seems to me like a reason
> to ditch the interface entirely when considering standardizing
> something for (say) HIP/HIT use.

The getaddrinfo may have its shortcomings, but it does not really prevent 
to write HIP bindings for it. As you said, it does handle address family 
independency quite well even though other things might be handled better. 
If there is better interface in the future, we can define HIP bindings 
also for it.

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

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email