On 2010-08-05 09:15, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > Hi Brian, > > On 10-08-04 03:21 PM, Brian Haberman wrote: >> Suresh, >> >> On 8/4/10 2:46 PM, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > ... >>> 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. > > Since we are reading the same text and coming up with different > conclusions, I would argue that the text needs tightening. In fact this > issue came up because of a post to the IPv6 mailing list by Brett Tate > in April asking the exact same question. > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg11684.html > > The exact question he asked was > > "Concerning "::" usage, is the requirement that > 1) "::" MUST be used when valid, or > 2) only that if used, it MUST be used to its maximum capability?"
It seems clear to me that a) the text needs clarifying to answer this; b) the clarification should be done in as few words as possible; c) this is a substantive technical change, not editing; d) the document is not fit for purpose without this clarification. Therefore, I see no alternative to withdrawing the draft from the RFC Editor, and going once more through the WGLC/IETF LC/IESG process. Sorry, but those are the rules of our game. If done smartly, it should only take 6 or 7 weeks. And I thank the authors for their work; this is a minor glitch. Brian Carpenter -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
