All,
Sorry for the delay in posting this, but there is no consensus to
adopt this draft as a 6MAN document.
Regards,
Brian
On 5/18/11 1:44 PM, Brian Haberman wrote:
> All,
> This starts a 2-week consensus call on adopting:
>
> Title : Naming IPv6 address parts
> Author(s)
I do not support this draft too.
--
From: "Christian Huitema"
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2011 12:03 PM
To: "Brian Haberman" ; "IPv6 WG Mailing List"
Subject: RE: Consensus call on adopting: draft-hartmann-6man-addressn
> This starts a 2-week consensus call on adopting ...
> draft-hartmann-6man-addresspartnaming-01.txt
> as a 6MAN WG document. Please state your opinion (either for or
> against) on making this draft a WG draft either on the mailing list or to the
> chairs. This call will end on May 1, 2011.
I
>> This starts a 2-week consensus call on adopting:
>> Title : Naming IPv6 address parts
>> Author(s) : L. Donnerhacke, et al.
>> Filename : draft-hartmann-6man-addresspartnaming-01.txt
to be my usual tactful self, i find this an embarrassment. it ranks
right up there with
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 01:44:34PM -0400, Brian Haberman wrote ipv6:
> All,
> This starts a 2-week consensus call on adopting:
>
> Title : Naming IPv6 address parts
> Author(s) : L. Donnerhacke, et al.
> Filename : draft-hartmann-6man-addresspartnaming-01.txt
> Pages
This draft claims to solve a problem that I don't have.
BTW, we already have a name, in the normative ABNF in RFC 3986:
h16 = 1*4HEXDIG
; 16 bits of address represented in hexadecimal
(In the faulty ABNF of RFC 3261, it was called a hex4.)
Regards
Brian Carpen
With no disrespect intended to the authors...
I agree that there is no universally accepted name for an IPv6 address part,
but IMO IETF and this WG has much larger things to be
concerned with than how to name IPv6 address parts, and adopting a document
like this makes it seem like we have nothing
