Re: Introducing draft-6man-addresspartnaming

Tim Chown <> Fri, 08 April 2011 10:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 025263A69F8 for <>; Fri, 8 Apr 2011 03:58:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.498
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i7KKSelh+-rQ for <>; Fri, 8 Apr 2011 03:58:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 928103A69B8 for <>; Fri, 8 Apr 2011 03:58:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p38B0Xqn004214 for <>; Fri, 8 Apr 2011 12:00:33 +0100
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 p38B0Xqn004214
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple;; s=200903; t=1302260433; bh=BIX0J1XChpps5cz2QlprML1gdNU=; h=From:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:To:References; b=KX5Z4JrOLthiTUomdkGNX+JHjxB/l0x42eDWZAVSdXYvmS7hyD9beW+9V4swk7pcT iCOngwKKxfwYJ3gDeJsj/fZVHjXhocETMX5+eKis8EATmpqrbqrPzdE6k0YgnEzZdW SGUnOaux5BUumHiC1f8OFDRzG5/SZVW1u8GX73xU=
Received: from ( [2001:630:d0:f102::25d]) by ( [2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) envelope-from <> with ESMTP id n37C0X00356107436O ret-id none; Fri, 08 Apr 2011 12:00:33 +0100
Received: from ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p38B0QkH023300 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for <>; Fri, 8 Apr 2011 12:00:26 +0100
From: Tim Chown <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-149--316804490
Subject: Re: Introducing draft-6man-addresspartnaming
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 12:00:26 +0100
In-Reply-To: <>
To: 6man <>
References: <> <>
Message-ID: <EMEW3|221296537ad26d627670c0f33894366an37C0X03tjc||>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-smtpf-Report: sid=n37C0X003561074300; tid=n37C0X00356107436O; client=relay,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=1:0; fails=0
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: p38B0Xqn004214
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 10:58:57 -0000

On 7 Apr 2011, at 21:07, Richard Hartmann wrote:
> Anyway, after a long time of gathering feedback, we have boiled down
> the options to hextet and quibble. quibble remains in there mostly for
> historic reasons and to gather additional feedback. I do not think
> suggesting two separate terms is useful in the least and we hope to
> get input on this. The main problem with it is that quibble is
> overloaded in English and in a negative way. My money is on consensus
> evolving to drop it in -01.
> 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.

Maybe hextet will grow on me.   I'll start using it and see what funny looks or comments I get :)

I also wouldn't object to people saying that an IPv6 address consists of eight hexadecimal quads (given quad is used elsewhere for groups of 4 things).

I would say SHOULD though not MUST.   If it catches on, people will just use it.