IETF Logo Mail Archive

[DNSOP] Re: [v6ops] Re: [EXTERNAL] New Version Notification for draft-jens-7050-secure-channel-00.txt

Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-13@u-1.phicoh.com> Thu, 27 June 2024 13:50 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b538D2F77@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FCCFC14F5E5; Thu, 27 Jun 2024 06:50:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3oaIMmRipn4L; Thu, 27 Jun 2024 06:50:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2a10:3781:2413:1:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62B33C14EB17; Thu, 27 Jun 2024 06:50:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #158) id m1sMpWQ-0000LXC; Thu, 27 Jun 2024 15:50:46 +0200
Message-Id: <m1sMpWQ-0000LXC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: v6ops@ietf.org
From: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-13@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b538D2F77@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <m1sMomq-0000J8C@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <BB068698-270B-431D-9AEF-F5B0497EB975@isc.org>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 27 Jun 2024 23:36:51 +1000 ." <BB068698-270B-431D-9AEF-F5B0497EB975@isc.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 15:50:45 +0200
Message-ID-Hash: B4ZNY5U3JZMP3VVOTFOPP3CAKOZDEWTT
X-Message-ID-Hash: B4ZNY5U3JZMP3VVOTFOPP3CAKOZDEWTT
X-MailFrom: pch-b538D2F77@u-1.phicoh.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-dnsop.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [DNSOP] Re: [v6ops] Re: [EXTERNAL] New Version Notification for draft-jens-7050-secure-channel-00.txt
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/4op9N65RZwkk3yAJtXGs1PkeFsM>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:dnsop-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:dnsop-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dnsop-leave@ietf.org>

> You use getaddrinfo
> instead. That is the IPv6 way to handle address literals. That way
> you get the mappings done for you.

That sounds like a rather poor approach. You never know which applications
users want to run. And telling users that they have to replace inet_pton
with getaddrinfo usually doesn't have a lot of effect.

RFC 3493 is also silent about a preference for using getaddrinfo over
inet_pton when it comes to parsing IP address literals.

v2.27.8 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status