On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 06:05:15PM +1000, Karl Auer wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 04:03 +0200, Richard Hartmann wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 03:54, Karl Auer <ka...@biplane.com.au> wrote:
> My argument against "hextet" is simple. It is not a legitimate
> abbreviation of "hexadectet" for two reasons. Firstly, you can't
> abbreviate "hexadec-" because to do so changes it's meaning from "16-"
> to "because, along the model of "quintet", "septet" and "octet" (and to
> a lesser extent triplet), the word "hextet" strongly suggests a set of
> six things. In contrast to blander options like "chunk" "field" and
> "segment", it is misleading - there may be zero to four hex digits
^^^^^^^^^^
> between two colons, and there are three to eight colon-delimited parts
> in an IPv6 address. There is no "sixness" in what the word is trying to
> describe.
So, you're talking about base-6 digits when you say "hex digits", right?
I wasn't aware that anybody used base-6 notation in computing...
In other words, there is precedent here. :-)
--
Scott Schmit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
