Hi Authors,
I like the idea of this draft. Thanks for writing this. It would
simplify things a lot for debugging purposes. I do have a couple of
comments on the draft though.
* It is not clear WHO needs to comply with the recommendations in the
draft. i.e. who is the targeted audience?
* I think recommendations 2 and 3 are redundant and can be merged into one.
* I see a missing requirement that states that an occurrence of 2 or
more zero 16-bit groups MUST be compressed. So an address like
2001:0:0:0:0:0:0:1 is still valid according to the current draft.
* I think Appendix D is completely out of place in this document and
should preferably be removed. (I also agree with Dave's comment about
Appendix A)
Thanks
Suresh
On 12/05/09 06:41 AM, Brian Haberman wrote:
6MAN WG,
A document (draft-kawamura-ipv6-text-representation-02) has been
sent to the v6ops list for comment. The ADs and chairs have determined
that it is more appropriate for the 6MAN WG since we are the home for
any work updating the base specifications. This draft proposes changes
to the textual representation of IPv6 addresses in order to avoid
confusion between different ways of writing the same address.
I would like the WG to review and comment on this document on the
list.
Regards,
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
