On Apr 26, 2011, at 9:10 AM, wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> Richard Hartmann
>>
>> after renaming to draft-hartmann-6man-addresspartnaming, I am still
>> waiting for feedback.
>
> Hi,
>
> I've been thinking an
> -Original Message-
> From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Richard Hartmann
>
> after renaming to draft-hartmann-6man-addresspartnaming, I am still
> waiting for feedback.
Hi,
I've been thinking and reading about it. I believe that if this doc will
> -Original Message-
> From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Richard Hartmann
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 8:49 PM
> To: ipv6@ietf.org
> Cc: Scott Schmit
> Subject: Re: Introducing draft-6man-addresspartnaming
>
> On
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 02:17, Scott Schmit wrote:
> I happen to agree. I don't see the point. After all, what are the
> numbers between the dots in IPv4 addresses called?
Octects.
Richard
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 01:58:43PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 04/14/2011 13:23, Richard Hartmann wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >after renaming to draft-hartmann-6man-addresspartnaming, I am still
> >waiting for feedback.
> >
> >
> >I am not sure how the exact procedures are: Does lack of feedback mea
On 04/14/2011 13:23, Richard Hartmann wrote:
Hi all,
after renaming to draft-hartmann-6man-addresspartnaming, I am still
waiting for feedback.
I am not sure how the exact procedures are: Does lack of feedback mean
people are mostly OK with this or that no one cares?
To be painfully honest, m
Hi all,
after renaming to draft-hartmann-6man-addresspartnaming, I am still
waiting for feedback.
I am not sure how the exact procedures are: Does lack of feedback mean
people are mostly OK with this or that no one cares? Am I too
impatient? Should I be doing something I am not doing yet?
If I
> -Original Message-
> From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Richard Hartmann
> Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 8:10 PM
> To: Scott Brim
> Cc: 6man List
> Subject: Re: Introducing draft-6man-addresspartnaming
>
> On Sat, Apr 9
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 01:01, Scott Brim wrote:
> If enough people express support we can make this a BCP
That would be very welcome indeed.
>, but whatever is
> done here, "the market" will decide on its own. .
If this poll [1] and the various feedback by operators is a reliable
metric, the
If enough people express support we can make this a BCP, but whatever is
done here, "the market" will decide on its own. .
[Sent from my Vibrant.]
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https
On Apr 8, 2011, at 4:00 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
>
> Maybe hextet will grow on me. I'll start using it and see what funny looks
> or comments I get
I would have preferred "hexquad" but nobody ever listens to me.
--
james woodyatt
member of technical staff, core os networking
---
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 wrote:
> My argument against "hextet" is simple. It is not a legitimate
> abbreviation of "hexadectet" for two reasons. Firstly, you c
On 7 Apr 2011, at 21:07, Richard Hartmann wrote:
>
> Anyway, after a long time of gathering feedback, we have boiled down
> the options to hextet and quibble. quibble remains in there mostly for
> historic reasons and to gather additional feedback. I do not think
> suggesting two separate terms i
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 10:05, Karl Auer wrote:
> OK. I've read it and find many of the arguments to be generally
> unconvincing. Right with you on "chazwazza" though :-)
That's fine. This is why we are here :)
> If the draft is to document what amounts to a popularity contest for a
> word, the
On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 04:03 +0200, Richard Hartmann wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 03:54, Karl Auer wrote:
> If you look at -02 of the initial draft, you will find a full list.
OK. I've read it and find many of the arguments to be generally
unconvincing. Right with you on "chazwazza" though :-)
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 03:54, Karl Auer wrote:
> "hextet" - oh dear. Were there really no better suggestions than quibble
> and hextet?
If you look at -02 of the initial draft, you will find a full list.
Googling for the name of the ID will bring up a lot of discussions on
various related lists.
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 22:07 +0200, Richard Hartmann wrote:
> The second question on my mind is if using MUST for hextet is
> appropriate. Using SHOULD is fine as well though I personally think
> MUST is better to avoid any and all potential confusion.
"hextet" - oh dear. Were there really no bette
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 23:52, Bob Hinden wrote:
> draft-hartmann-6man-addresspartnaming-00
The main work is shared between two editors listed alphabetically so I
am unsure how to name this fairly. Suggestions?
draft-donnerhackehartmann-6man-addresspartnaming-00 is a tad too long
;)
Thanks,
Ri
Richard,
It is good to discuss this in 6man on the IPv6 list, but if you are going to
resubmit the draft it should be named something like:
draft-hartmann-6man-addresspartnaming-00
as it is an individual draft, not a 6man working group document.
Thanks,
Bob
On Apr 7, 2011, at 1:07 PM, Ric
19 matches
Mail list logo
