RE: Introducing draft-6man-addresspartnaming

<Guillaume.Leclanche@swisscom.com> Tue, 26 April 2011 13:10 UTC

Return-Path: <Guillaume.Leclanche@swisscom.com>
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 C9F7EE0778 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 06:10:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 cdCNIaAiaxuu for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 06:10:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.swisscom.com (outmail100.swisscom.com [193.222.81.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA15BE0777 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 06:10:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by intmail1.corproot.net; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 15:10:54 +0200
From: <Guillaume.Leclanche@swisscom.com>
To: <richih.mailinglist@gmail.com>, <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Introducing draft-6man-addresspartnaming
Thread-Topic: Introducing draft-6man-addresspartnaming
Thread-Index: AQHL9V97ca/ZFYGqbUCQyaMnydccSpRdt3IAgBJ6A1A=
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:10:53 +0000
Message-ID: <1BE5D090C6244A49B9815F339F76EA4507AE0129@SG000708.corproot.net>
References: <BANLkTik=FRQyL8HpH_OCVv+xnVbv9MO5Fg@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTi=kE0Q6xzOEYCqrifN=oOOj4vwFeg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=kE0Q6xzOEYCqrifN=oOOj4vwFeg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-CH, de-CH, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [193.222.84.5]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
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 13:10:57 -0000

> -----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.


Guillaume