Re: Introducing draft-6man-addresspartnaming

Richard Hartmann <> Fri, 08 April 2011 02:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16C4B3A69A2 for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 19:02:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.663
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.663 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.064, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7hApnMpNryTR for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 19:02:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 294033A69CF for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 19:02:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iye19 with SMTP id 19so3744791iye.31 for <>; Thu, 07 Apr 2011 19:03:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=ysbOoVkriFMhOUGL+CuKiAkM+U3Xa2hp64MUnSqe5Zw=; b=NVLXMDuQVMEW/d0VDdTSoO3WGS/zuCAaN5Og26eoi8vV35t5XwIDap+jMq2gibaOyW rx0e0fIkWv+okhFnlgbwoBmdfdctM0DLjm+gs1D+vXCcM3RtMbVkRDr3qJBQ/ECX2goD 2jtF4BDHASZJjNispvH+h+9EESlWY3m1zSQjU=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=gOOrbNxFtP8irVL3ty/p7SI1gZwoOASvs8x7JJsY9IncC5xYqn4tvsG75j8TLdBmV0 i7hwL+iOELnI9BeTAyNcD+quRkJkAglUBzzj16Ma1CyUlLMkc4Cpc3O1kjhven5xxFmA ohKZMr35ZQlX/1rRgaEZ1Sa5EbN0kuPN7a94g=
Received: by with SMTP id u6mr1537546ibh.160.1302228231119; Thu, 07 Apr 2011 19:03:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 19:03:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1302227649.31306.221.camel@karl>
References: <> <1302227649.31306.221.camel@karl>
From: Richard Hartmann <>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 04:03:31 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Introducing draft-6man-addresspartnaming
To: Karl Auer <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 02:02:07 -0000

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. Finally, hextet and quibble came out _far_
ahead of all other options. FWIW, hextet is the short form of

> However, "field" is even better.

Field is overloaded and not unique. If anything you would have to say
"IPv6 field" which is bulky and context-sensitive.

> An invented word, unless it has the same quirky, geeky humor of "byte"
> and "nibble", is most unlikely to be generally adopted.

Why? It's a unique identifier without pre-existing meaning in the
relevant context.

> Definitely "SHOULD", not "MUST". People will say what they say.

The MUST refers to written documentation. This might or might not
change depending on feedback.

> I confess I thought at first you might be joking....

I assure you I am not.

In somewhat unrelated news, "Karl Auer" is a famous persona of a
German comedian. I doubt you named yourself after him, but I always
wondered and context is fitting, atm.

Thanks for your feedback,