It seems that policy should be scenario / use case / mission dependent, and consequently apply to a number of applications. (And thus be application independent). Bonnie L. Gorsic Technical Fellow SoS Architecture & Engineering 714-762-4906 (desk) -----Original Message----- From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore@xxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 8:35 PM To: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx; 200709270133.l8R1XuB6060071@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: AI_SECURE_CANONNAME, AI_CANONNAME_SEARCH_* (Re: getaddrinfo()and searching) Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote: >> What a timely thread. >> >> I've recently concluded that we need an extension to getaddrinfo() >> along these lines, but I'm looking for somewhat tighter and more >> generic semantics. >> >> My proposal is to add an AI_SECURE_CANONNAME flag with the following >> semantics: >> > > do not try to implement policy into applications. you will end up > forced to (?) rewrite every existing applications. > perhaps, but having the policy be application-independent doesn't make sense either. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf