On 02/20/10 22:30, Antonio Querubin wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010, Doug Barton wrote:
>
>> 4.2.4. Exception to the "::" Shortening Rule
>>
>> When it is necessary to record an address with consecutive 16 bit 0
>> fields without the use of the "::" symbol, for example in a database,
>> each such field SHOULD be represented with one, and only one zero. For
>> example 2001:db8:0:0:0:0:0:1. However when the address is written out
>> for human consumption the "::" MUST be used as described in the sections
>> above.
>
> If the field in the database is text-based, then I think we really
> should adhere to the same rule. If the field uses anything other than
> text, then I think it's out of scope.
If the address is stored in one chunk I'm sympathetic to your line of
reasoning, and as I said in my post I realize that including the section
I wrote isn't a slam dunk. However I'm also concerned about the scenario
where each 16-bit field is stored in its own database field. If that
qualifies as out of scope by your definition above, that's Ok too.
Doug
--
... and that's just a little bit of history repeating.
-- Propellerheads
Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
