itojun@iijlab.net writes:
> 	we had a local discussion within KAME.  we do not really like to
> 	support PF_LOCAL, unless there's clear standard behavior for AF_LOCAL
> 	case.

I think this is the wrong approach.  If we're always going to wait for
a clear and standarized behaviour of something before implementing it,
I'm afraid that this is not going to appear and if there is actually a
standard for it, then it will have been written without the help of
implementation and usage experience.

>       getaddrinfo/
> 	getnameinfo behavior itself is rather vaguely defined in the standards
> 	(POSIX drafts as well as RFC2553/bis), and we don't want to add
> 	more jitter to it.

agree :-)

/assar