Re: [v6ops] Could IPv6 address be more than locator?//draft-jiang-v6ops-semantic-prefix-03

[Sheng Jiang <[e-mail]>]

>>>> By the way, ISPs are only one kind of network operators who are
>interesting
>>> in semantic prefix. Enterprise network operators are another group of
>>> network operators who can benefit from embedded semantics. And the
>>> enterprises do not have subscribers who potentially need extra bits.
>>>
>>> Your use of the word "benefit" here is questionable at best. It is an
>example of
>>> language that seems to encourage this use rather than evaluate it in an
>>> unbiased manner.
>>>
>>> "Enterprise operators are another group of network operators which may
>>> succumb to this nasty pitfall of embedded semantics" would be  an
>equally
>>> biased statement in the opposite direction.
>>>
>>> I suggest that neutral would require something more along the lines of:
>>>
>>> "Enterprise operators are another group of network operators which may
>>> choose to embed semantics in their address prefixes."
>>>
>>> Now, in terms of arguing the merits, there are significant differences
>between
>>> these two. In the case of an enterprise operator, their choice to embed
>>> semantics in the address has a limited scope of harm. It can only negatively
>>> impact said enterprise.
>>>
>>> In the case of an ISP, this can have significant consequences not only for
>the
>>> ISP, but also for their downstream customers.
>>
>> As a neutral analysis, it is fine to say there are benefits and pitfalls. All good
>things come with costs. I will make sure we document both sides in the draft.
>>
>
>Yes. However, when you talk about classes of users that may use a technology,
>there are multiple ways to express that potential use.
>
>"Those that may benefit…" is a positive way.
>"The world will end if…" is a negative way.
>"The following groups may use…" is neutral.
>
>When you are talking about how something can be implemented or the
>relative merits of doing so, then it is appropriate to discuss the benefits and
>pitfalls (ideally in as neutral a fashion as possible).

Hi, Owen,

Thanks for your neutral suggestion. I agree on this, and will try my best to use the neutral language in the future version. To clarify myself, I think "the X groups may get Y benefit with Z cost" is a neutral analysis.

Cheers,

Sheng

>I hope that clarifies what I was attempting to express above.
>
>Owen