Re: Introducing draft-6man-addresspartnaming

[Jared Mauch <[e-mail]>]

On Apr 26, 2011, at 9:10 AM, <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>> Richard Hartmann
>> 
>> after renaming to draft-hartmann-6man-addresspartnaming, I am still
>> waiting for feedback.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I've been thinking and reading about it. I believe that if this doc will standardize anything, then it should be linguistically correct.
> As a consequence, "hextet" can't be even mentioned for official documents. If official documents writers want/have to use a word (rather than "bits 33 to 48"), they have to use something correct. In my opinion the IETF can't just mess with linguistic for the fun of it. 
> 
> 
> If we split "octet" :
> "octo-" + "-et"
> 
> So in theory :
> "hexadecim-" + "-et" = "hexadecimet"
> 
> (the "t" in "hexdectet" comes from "oct-" not from "-et", so it's incorrect as well)
> 
> 
> So my proposal as an individual that has absolutely no authority about the matter is :
> 
> 1 : "hexadecimet" [in English : /ˌhɛksəˈdɛsəmɛt/] MUST be used in official documents.
> 2 : delete any mention of quibble, hextet, hexadectet, or other variants.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's leave it up to people to decide which one they want to use for informal communication and have this doc standardize only the exact only official naming for IETF documents.


[having actually read the draft]

Seems as reasonable as anything else.  I certainly see the interest in disclosing the alternates considered, the formal document should likely omit these and some other reference (e.g.: list archive) should refer to the historical suggestions.

- Jared