Suresh, On 8/4/10 2:46 PM, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On 10-08-04 01:30 PM, t.petch wrote: >> errrrrrrr >> >> Tom Petch >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Suresh Krishnan" <suresh.krish...@ericsson.com> >> To: "Brian Haberman" <br...@innovationslab.net> >> Cc: <ipv6@ietf.org> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 6:15 PM >> Subject: Re: draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation AUTH48 change >> > ... >>> I am not certain whether this is appropriate, but I think this issue >>> should be fixed before publication. Otherwise the document fails to >>> achieve its stated goal. e.g. An address >>> >>> 2001:db8:0:0:0:0:2:1 >>> >>> can still show up as either >>> >>> 2001:db8:0:0:0:0:2:1 or 2001:db8::2:1 >> >> No it cannot >>>> The use of the symbol "::" MUST be used to its maximum capability. >> tells me utterly and explicitly that the second of these two is right >> and that >> the first is wrong! IMHO! > > Not really. The text you quoted does not state whether "::" MUST always > be used if it is possible to do so. It only states that when used, it > must be used to the maximum capability.
I disagree. The rule plainly states that "::" must be used to its maximum capability. I view that as saying you must use it if it is at all possible AND use it where it creates the highest level of compression. I don't see any wiggle room in the rule to allow someone to not use "::" when it can be applied. Regards, Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
