On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 02:54:18AM +0900, JINMEI Tatuya / [EMAIL PROTECTED]@C#:H wrote:
[...] > It would be very confusing for the user to see they can simply reuse > the output of the diagnostic tool in some cases and they need to > convert the output in some other cases. I am with you here. And it might happen that implementations actually accept the cut'n'paste friendly format #3, even if that is not what the spec calls for. > Meanwhile, since the use of scope-zone notation must be limited within > a single node, the auxiliary notation (with v1 and +) that conforms to > the URI syntax doesn't actually help/affect interoperability. I would be careful about this. Management applications, for example, might write URIs containing zone ids to boxes to tell them what to do or read them just to find out what is going on. I agree that the interpretation is only meaningful within the context of the node; the interpretation, however, may happen very well outside the node. What is my position on this? I am undecided. As a user, I strongly dislike the notation #1 (and I doubt many humans will ever use it) but at the same time I do understand why the notation #3 makes people feel pretty unhappy. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen <http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/> P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
