Re: [v6ops] The need for local-ipv4 socket transition solutions -- NAT64/DNS64 remains insufficient

[James Woodyatt <[e-mail]>]

Ted—

I'm not saying IETF should obsolete the excellent work that POSIX has
already done. I'm simply saying that IETF is probably the better place to
define what the POSIX network programming interfaces for IPv4 are expected
to do on hosts with IPv6 network interfaces and an integrated CLAT
function. I further think this work would be more suitable for 6MAN than
V6OPS, and until I see a standard track draft adopted, I'm going to be
opposed to V6OPS adopting a work item to produce a BCP for host operating
systems to implement a CLAT function.

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Apr 22, 2015, at 6:36 PM, James Woodyatt <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > If this stuff is going to be a standard feature of host operating system
> for the foreseeable future, then I for one would like it to be standardized
> as well as the current IPv6 programming interfaces are standardized. I
> don't think that's an unreasonable position to start.
>
> I think this is a very reasonable position.   However, not everybody in
> the IETF thinks we should be defining APIs, and there's the rub.
>  Nominally, APIs of this sort are a POSIX thing.
>
>


-- 
james woodyatt <[e-mail]>
Nest Labs, Communications Engineering