[v6ops] Conclusions? - Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming

Richard Hartmann richih.mailinglist at gmail.com
Tue Nov 30 06:09:52 CST 2010


On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 21:34, Doug Barton <dougb at dougbarton.us> 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.




More information about the NANOG mailing list