Conclusions? - Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming
dougb at dougbarton.us
Mon Nov 29 14:34:46 CST 2010
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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. :)
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)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the NANOG