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

[Mark Smith <[e-mail]>]

On 2 November 2015 at 11:31, Brian E Carpenter
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 02/11/2015 13:16, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>>
>> I see there have been changes to replace "smaller" prefix size. Personally I don't like "shorter" and "longer", it's not
>> intuitive which is which (compare using -gt and -le in prefix filter lists).
>>
>
> "Smaller" is completely ambiguous - does it means smaller prefix or smaller address block?
>

So (as an English first language speaker), I interpret "smaller" and
"larger" to be describing an unordered quantity in most cases, where
as I interpret "shorter" and "longer" to be describing a measure in
most cases. The exceptions are when there is other context that
indicates alternative use.

Therefore my expectation is that "smaller" and "larger" would be used
to describe the number of addresses in a prefix, where as "shorter" or
"longer" would be describing the length or measure of the prefix.

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".

Regards,
Mark.