On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 11:50:51PM +0100, Dan Wing wrote: > Your email from January 28: > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg11215.html, summarized: > > 1) Mandate that the text representation is <SOMETHING> > and never changes after this. > > 2) Mandate that the text representation is <SOMETHING> > but take into account new WKPs. > > 3) Mandate that the text representation is <SOMETHING> > but require that external mechanisms help recognize > even dynamically assigned IPv4/IPv6 prefixes. > > 4) As above, but specify a mandatory external mechanism.
My main interest is textual comparability of addresses coming from potentially many different sources. If I can compare addresses safely only if I know some context information communicated out of band or I have to configure all sources to produce the same, I feel somewhat uneasy. My preference thus is 1), I might be OK with 2) if the frequency of the introduction of new WKPs is very small. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
