>>>> By the way, ISPs are only one kind of network operators who are >interesting >>> in semantic prefix. Enterprise network operators are another group of >>> network operators who can benefit from embedded semantics. And the >>> enterprises do not have subscribers who potentially need extra bits. >>> >>> Your use of the word "benefit" here is questionable at best. It is an >example of >>> language that seems to encourage this use rather than evaluate it in an >>> unbiased manner. >>> >>> "Enterprise operators are another group of network operators which may >>> succumb to this nasty pitfall of embedded semantics" would be an >equally >>> biased statement in the opposite direction. >>> >>> I suggest that neutral would require something more along the lines of: >>> >>> "Enterprise operators are another group of network operators which may >>> choose to embed semantics in their address prefixes." >>> >>> Now, in terms of arguing the merits, there are significant differences >between >>> these two. In the case of an enterprise operator, their choice to embed >>> semantics in the address has a limited scope of harm. It can only negatively >>> impact said enterprise. >>> >>> In the case of an ISP, this can have significant consequences not only for >the >>> ISP, but also for their downstream customers. >> >> As a neutral analysis, it is fine to say there are benefits and pitfalls. >> All good >things come with costs. I will make sure we document both sides in the draft. >> > >Yes. However, when you talk about classes of users that may use a technology, >there are multiple ways to express that potential use. > >"Those that may benefit…" is a positive way. >"The world will end if…" is a negative way. >"The following groups may use…" is neutral. > >When you are talking about how something can be implemented or the >relative merits of doing so, then it is appropriate to discuss the benefits and >pitfalls (ideally in as neutral a fashion as possible).
Hi, Owen, Thanks for your neutral suggestion. I agree on this, and will try my best to use the neutral language in the future version. To clarify myself, I think "the X groups may get Y benefit with Z cost" is a neutral analysis. Cheers, Sheng >I hope that clarifies what I was attempting to express above. > >Owen -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
