Re: [v6ops] Conclusions? - Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 21:34, Doug Barton wrote: > If you're looking for serious feedback: We are. > 3. I've never had a problem calling it "field," I think that 5952 is a > perfectly good normative ref for that, and I don't understand what the > fuss is about. :) I seem to remember one of the authors of the initial RFCs telling us that they went with field with the understanding that it's so generic that someone could/would think of something else down the road. I didn't have time to really search for that mail, though. The fact that GMail is refusing to display quite a few mails atm (or serve them via SMTP) does not help, either. Most of my draft-related emails are amongst that... To give a short summary of the current status: Hextet received the most votes by far, followed by quibble. Everything else didn't get nearly as much support. Quad has been suggested a lot of times, but its meaning within the C/C++ world and very frequent use within the Kame stack sadly makes this a no-go. Quibble already has a meaning in English and a negative one, at that. Hextet is incorrect if you are being pedantic, but it's reasonably unique so that you don't have to call it "IPv6 hextet" to avoid confusion. Given all of the above, my personal opinion is that hextet will come out as the winner. Richard PS: Thanks to Joel. I was contemplating how to refocus the whole thing and he did our job for us; and nicely.
Re: Conclusions? - Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 11/29/2010 11:59, Joel Jaeggli wrote: | Since 11/18/10 this discussion has generated something like 66 messages | across five threads on this list, on nanog and elsewhere. | | While some suggestions are entertaining, I would think of this criticism | and commentary on the document as useful if it winnowed the number of | options down to fewer rather than more. e.g. the positive result and the | path to advancement of this draft would be when the document produces a | solid recommendation on address part naming rather than several of them. | | Several recomendations do not get us further down the road to a common | set of terminology. If you're looking for serious feedback: 1. Any term using > 1 word is out 2. Any word using > 2 syllables is out 3. I've never had a problem calling it "field," I think that 5952 is a perfectly good normative ref for that, and I don't understand what the fuss is about. :) hth, Doug - -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (FreeBSD) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJM9A5mAAoJEFzGhvEaGryEGxEH/3rs0yOYma3fWHnHc20+fxPu CTcziNHpjjkvI0bAv0V+NFAxXO350iyv18KqufyEvCuGbkT/AETfOLAr+QsDa09X vvE7/sO+XEBNuGI1f2IZiDDZQ9M4u1L5Hx+stJ6chxASXzBUHPJdNamO5DbmKU6H Wxic2+XEtBl/EvX4yB/yBJOwT7R+gjgWcQjCZ06aPmi0N45fGohhsutv7fE93qlm GCxp6zQisr88rgdgs6HyJgwc36ZmVFCqEoT8IYBYDxwWYc28S4Wb0WWd3R3rs13E 3eNysvRPPv0UxALYgecLKc/C0HOTQjfgS4YplbFL/ltHzIRLs6qPXUJyNT3XC+4= =YBMa -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Conclusions? - Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming
Since 11/18/10 this discussion has generated something like 66 messages across five threads on this list, on nanog and elsewhere. While some suggestions are entertaining, I would think of this criticism and commentary on the document as useful if it winnowed the number of options down to fewer rather than more. e.g. the positive result and the path to advancement of this draft would be when the document produces a solid recommendation on address part naming rather than several of them. Several recomendations do not get us further down the road to a common set of terminology. thanks joel
