Conclusions? - Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming

Mon Nov 29 20:34:46 UTC 2010

-----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-----