Re: Introducing draft-6man-addresspartnaming

Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> Tue, 26 April 2011 13:27 UTC

Return-Path: <jared@puck.nether.net>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C50C2E0760 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 06:27:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mYd+0zB5Bb59 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 06:27:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from puck.nether.net (puck.nether.net [IPv6:2001:418:3f4::5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3A20E075E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 06:27:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.241] (173-167-0-106-michigan.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.167.0.106]) (authenticated bits=0) by puck.nether.net (8.14.4/8.12.9) with ESMTP id p3QDRcIS068518 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:27:43 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jared@puck.nether.net)
Subject: Re: Introducing draft-6man-addresspartnaming
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1216)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <1BE5D090C6244A49B9815F339F76EA4507AE0129@SG000708.corproot.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:27:36 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FF20E08D-63B5-4EF0-8FDF-97463F192A67@puck.nether.net>
References: <BANLkTik=FRQyL8HpH_OCVv+xnVbv9MO5Fg@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTi=kE0Q6xzOEYCqrifN=oOOj4vwFeg@mail.gmail.com> <1BE5D090C6244A49B9815F339F76EA4507AE0129@SG000708.corproot.net>
To: <Guillaume.Leclanche@swisscom.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1216)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.6 (puck.nether.net [204.42.254.5]); Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:27:45 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:27:51 -0000

On Apr 26, 2011, at 9:10 AM, <Guillaume.Leclanche@swisscom.com>; wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] 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