Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability-02.txt

[Havard Eidnes <[e-mail]>]

>>> I agree with making sure to avoiding ambiguity, I know on occasion it
>>> hasn't been clear to me whether somebody is describing a prefix with a
>>> smaller number of addresses, or a shorter prefix length, which obviously
>>> mean the complete opposites in terms of number of addresses within the
>>> prefix, when they use "smaller prefix".
>>
>> What about "smaller/larger sized prefix"?
>
> That would be clearer.

To me that's still borderline ambigious, and I don't understand
why anyone would want to use borderline ambigious wording when
writing RFCs or discussing them.

It's not clear whether it's the prefix-length which is "smaller"
or "larger" or the address space covered which is "smaller" or
"larger", and they each point in the direction of different
interpretations.  In other words, you don't "size" a prefix, but
you "size" the address space covered.  A prefix, on the other
hand, has length, so to my eyes the above looks ... awkward.

Therefore I'm suggesting the more unambigious "shorter/longer
prefix" as preferable.

Regards,

- Håvard