Ben Harris <bjh21@netbsd.org> writes:

> > revision 1.26
> > date: 2002/05/22 09:42:37;  author: kleink;  state: Exp;  lines: +2 -2
> > Turn the flags argument to getnameinfo(3) back into an int (from unsigned
> > int); this is consistent with RFC2553, the current draft-ietf-ipngwg-
> > rfc2553bis-05 and the majority of deployed implementations.
> >
> > Also, there is an effort under way to have this changed back to int in
> > XBD6/XSH6, XNS, and POSIX-2001 TC1.
> 
> That effort is very unlikely to succeed, since the set of changes that
> will go into TC1 is pretty close to finalised, and that one was explicitly
> rejected.  As far as I could tell, the XNS/POSIX people believed that the
> IETF people had handed over the development of API standards to XNS/POSIX,
> and hence that any changes that XNS/POSIX made would be definitive.
> General consensus seemed to be that using "unsigned" for flags words
> rather than "int" was sensible, and that the API was new enough that there
> wouldn't be any applications or implementations that couldn't easily
> change to "unsigned" (the change being invisible to almost all
> applications).

I'm aware of the two ERNs having been rejected at the May meeting, as
well as the draft Aardvark review period closing two days from now.
However, my interpretation of Jack McCann's comments on the ipng list
is that Jack McCann intends to raise that issue again (hopefully
before the review period's end).

Also, when I reported that difference between XNS/POSIX and
rfc2553bis-05 to ipng Jack's was the only comment I received on that
issue, and considering he's one of that draft's editors I'm taking the
Austin WG's "beliefs" with a grain of salt.


- Klaus