Re: Introducing draft-6man-addresspartnaming

Scott Schmit <i.grok@comcast.net> Fri, 08 April 2011 11:22 UTC

Return-Path: <i.grok@comcast.net>
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 093183A69FB for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Apr 2011 04:22:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.197
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.402, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fgKE3xScWekJ for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Apr 2011 04:22:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qmta01.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta01.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.30.16]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F88A3A69F8 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Apr 2011 04:22:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omta16.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.72]) by qmta01.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id UzPY1g0011ZMdJ4A1zQkmj; Fri, 08 Apr 2011 11:24:44 +0000
Received: from odin.ulthar.us ([68.33.77.0]) by omta16.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id UzQi1g00G00PQ6U8czQjRv; Fri, 08 Apr 2011 11:24:43 +0000
Received: from odin.ulthar.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by odin.ulthar.us (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p38BOfkH020771 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Apr 2011 07:24:41 -0400
Received: (from draco@localhost) by odin.ulthar.us (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p38BOfQP020769 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 8 Apr 2011 07:24:41 -0400
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 07:24:41 -0400
From: Scott Schmit <i.grok@comcast.net>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Introducing draft-6man-addresspartnaming
Message-ID: <20110408112441.GA14605@odin.ulthar.us>
Mail-Followup-To: ipv6@ietf.org
References: <BANLkTik=FRQyL8HpH_OCVv+xnVbv9MO5Fg@mail.gmail.com> <1302227649.31306.221.camel@karl> <BANLkTinOPiLxSSG9Kjd=QNwpT7TCTnrHvQ@mail.gmail.com> <1302249915.31306.332.camel@karl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1302249915.31306.332.camel@karl>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 11:22:59 -0000

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 <kauer@biplane.com.au>; wrote:
> My argument against "hextet" is simple. It is not a legitimate
> abbreviation of "hexadectet" for two reasons. Firstly, you can't
> abbreviate "hexadec-" because to do so changes it's meaning from "16-"
> to "because, along the model of "quintet", "septet" and "octet" (and to
> a lesser extent triplet), the word "hextet" strongly suggests a set of
> six things. In contrast to blander options like "chunk" "field" and
> "segment", it is misleading - there may be zero to four hex digits
                                                          ^^^^^^^^^^
> between two colons, and there are three to eight colon-delimited parts
> in an IPv6 address. There is no "sixness" in what the word is trying to
> describe.

So, you're talking about base-6 digits when you say "hex digits", right?
I wasn't aware that anybody used base-6 notation in computing...

In other words, there is precedent here. :-)

-- 
Scott Schmit