Re: [kitten] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6680 (4337)

[Sam Hartman <[e-mail]>]

I really don't think we considered blocking when developing 6680.
I think this is something that if we're going to discuss we need a full
IETF consensus to say.

I think that the proposed text would be a good starting point, for this
API.
My concern is that other APIs in the document might block, and that I
think that a WG such as kitten should fully consider the issue rather
than using the erata process for this issue.

If Ben's aware of discussion in the kitten archives that show we
considered blocking and intended it to be the case that calls not
explicitly mentioned as blocking cannot block, then  I'd support
theerrata.
OTherwise, I'd prefer a new document address this concern.


I'll note that we cannot really say that a call never blocks.  An
implementation may have network swap or executable segments that are
demand page over a network filesystem.  An implementation may use
nsswitch resources that consult network databases, etc.
The best we can say is that it's reasonable to write applications
assuming certain APIs do not generally block.