On 02/21/10 11:01, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 2010-02-21 19:38, Doug Barton wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I think it's out of scope of a *protocol* standard. However, I think Doug
> has a valid point, so maybe we should add an explicit statement that
> the document defines what should be transmitted and presented to humans,
> but does not define internal storage within an application or database.
That would be ok with me, thank you for suggesting it.
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
