Re: Review requested: draft-kawamura-ipv6-text-representation-02

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

Hi Seiichi,
   Please find responses inline.

On 15/05/09 11:56 AM, Seiichi Kawamura wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Hi Suresh
> 
>>   I like the idea of this draft. Thanks for writing this. It would
>> simplify things a lot for debugging purposes. 
> 
> and thank you for taking the time to read and comment!
> 
>> * It is not clear WHO needs to comply with the recommendations in the
>> draft. i.e. who is the targeted audience?
> 
> Section4. states
> 
>    recommendation in this document SHOULD be followed by humans and
>    systems when generating an address to represent as text, but all
>    implementations MUST accept any legitimate [RFC4291] format.
> 
> this was advised to me by Brian Carpenter that it was needed.
> Does this answer your question?

Sounds good. I would like such text to be present in the abstract 
section as well.

> 
>> * I think recommendations 2 and 3 are redundant and can be merged into one.
> 
> I assume you are talking about the conclusion.
> Do you think that it should read something like this?
> 
>  (2) "::" used to their maximum extent where shortens address the most

I will try to come up with some text for the recommendations.

> 
> I got a similar comment on v6ops BTW.
> 
>> * I see a missing requirement that states that an occurrence of 2 or
>> more zero 16-bit groups MUST be compressed. So an address like
>> 2001:0:0:0:0:0:0:1 is still valid according to the current draft.
> 
> You may be right.
> I thought '(2) "::" used to their maximum extent whenever possible'
> did enough to clarify, but a little rewording might be needed.
> Thanks.

OK.

> 
>> * I think Appendix D is completely out of place in this document and
>> should preferably be removed. (I also agree with Dave's comment about
>> Appendix A)
> 
> Appendix A, yes I would go with dot-decimal also.
> Appendix D, I don't know. I thought it would be informative
> to other operators (since we have to pronounce addresses fairly
> often over the phone)...

I prefer removing it altogether but I am not opposed to having it in the 
document.

Thanks
Suresh