Re: Introducing draft-6man-addresspartnaming

Karl Auer <> Fri, 08 April 2011 01:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 342B13A69AD for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 18:52:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.562
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.562 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LXNOjORPRYtk for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 18:52:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A955E3A69A0 for <>; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 18:52:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([] helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (SSLv3:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <>) id 1Q80to-0000IC-Hh for; Thu, 07 Apr 2011 21:54:12 -0400
Subject: Re: Introducing draft-6man-addresspartnaming
From: Karl Auer <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-lx676jq2Thm1mxkMU+IN"
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 11:54:09 +1000
Message-ID: <1302227649.31306.221.camel@karl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
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 01:52:33 -0000

On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 22:07 +0200, Richard Hartmann wrote:
> The second question on my mind is if using MUST for hextet is
> appropriate. Using SHOULD is fine as well though I personally think
> MUST is better to avoid any and all potential confusion.

"hextet" - oh dear. Were there really no better suggestions than quibble
and hextet? Sorry for missing the earlier discussions, an I'll pull my
head in if it's really gone that far down the track, but "hextet" is
wrong on o many levels. It implies that it consists of six things - like
a quintet (5), septet(7) or triplet(3). The idea that a hextet is four
hex digits is very counter-intuitive.

What about "quad"? IPv4 has "dotted quad", but I've never heard that
notation referred to as "quad" without the "dotted". I doubt there would
be confusion regardless, and certainly not in context. "Quad" accurately
conveys the sense of "four", there are four hex digits in each section
of an uncompressed IPv6 address etc - seems like a good word.

However, "field" is even better. It's straightforward and gets around
the fact that the chunk between two colons in an IPv6 address is often
*not* actually four hex digits. It may represent any number of hex
digits from zero to 32! For such a thing, "hextet"and "quad" are both
very wrong. "Field" would remain correct, however.

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

Definitely "SHOULD", not "MUST". People will say what they say.
> this issue might not seem to be important at first, but many/most
> people tend to reconsider after some thinking,

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

Regards, K.

Karl Auer (                   +61-2-64957160 (h)                   +61-428-957160 (mob)

GPG fingerprint: DA41 51B1 1481 16E1 F7E2 B2E9 3007 14ED 5736 F687
Old fingerprint: B386 7819 B227 2961 8301 C5A9 2EBC 754B CD97 0156