RE: Introducing draft-6man-addresspartnaming

"Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com> Sat, 09 April 2011 00:32 UTC

Return-Path: <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
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 3DA373A6820 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Apr 2011 17:32:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 uc4utoj-OD8W for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Apr 2011 17:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stl-smtpout-01.boeing.com (stl-smtpout-01.boeing.com [130.76.96.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 342D13A681E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Apr 2011 17:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blv-av-01.boeing.com (blv-av-01.boeing.com [130.247.48.231]) by stl-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/8.14.4/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id p390Ydba004423 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Apr 2011 19:34:40 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by blv-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with SMTP id p390Yd5L006026 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Apr 2011 17:34:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from XCH-MWHT-06.mw.nos.boeing.com (xch-mwht-06.mw.nos.boeing.com [134.57.113.166]) by blv-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id p390YaOP005996 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=OK); Fri, 8 Apr 2011 17:34:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from XCH-MWPFX-01.mw.nos.boeing.com (132.173.24.10) by XCH-MWHT-06.mw.nos.boeing.com (134.57.113.166) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.83.0; Fri, 8 Apr 2011 19:34:36 -0500
Received: from XCH-MW-08V.mw.nos.boeing.com ([134.57.119.191]) by XCH-MWPFX-01.mw.nos.boeing.com ([132.173.24.10]) with mapi; Fri, 8 Apr 2011 19:34:36 -0500
From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@boeing.com>
To: Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 19:34:32 -0500
Subject: RE: Introducing draft-6man-addresspartnaming
Thread-Topic: Introducing draft-6man-addresspartnaming
Thread-Index: Acv2SoykydqEIqlxSp2nlzrpJ1bFbAAAwQsQ
Message-ID: <B0147C3DD45E42478038FC347CCB65FE02A786E1DF@XCH-MW-08V.mw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <BANLkTi=acX_sU07OzO9-p+1e7Wh4RGsLFg@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinR7J3fq0rrej8FW1QqGrkozrAYbw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinR7J3fq0rrej8FW1QqGrkozrAYbw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.0.0.1412-6.500.1024-18062.000
x-tm-as-result: No--57.772100-0.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: Yes
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: 6man List <ipv6@ietf.org>
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: Sat, 09 Apr 2011 00:32:56 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Richard Hartmann
> Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 8:10 PM
> To: Scott Brim
> Cc: 6man List
> Subject: Re: Introducing draft-6man-addresspartnaming
> 
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 01:01, Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com>; wrote:
> > If enough people express support we can make this a BCP
> 
> That would be very welcome indeed.
> 
> 
> >,  but whatever is
> > done here, "the market" will decide on its own. .
> 
> If this poll [1] and the various feedback by operators is a reliable
> metric, the market may have decided for hextet, already. And yes, I
> should have used Condorcet [2] possibly modified for NotA.

I think something is needed, and hextet is probably good-ish.

Anyone considered hexdectet? Easier to say that hexadectet, I think, and far more accurate than hextet!

Quibble? Naw. For one thing, it has negative connotations. Who wants to be quibbling over IPv6 addresses for all time anyway? We have more important things to do? (I think we do?)

Bert