Subject: RE: [AVT] CNAME question

From: "Peter Barany" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 11:22:53 -0600

Colin,

I agree, but since we are moving RFC 1889 to Draft Standard and since IPv6
is moving forward, it might be a good idea to at least mention IPv6. Just a
thought. I leave it up to you and Stephen. Here is my proposed minor textual
change to account for IPv6 (two additions to two paragraphs):

****In "Section 6.5.1 CNAME: Canonical end-point identifier SDES item",
paragraph beginning with "Therefore, the CNAME SHOULD be derived
algorithmically ..." ****

PROPOSED CHANGE/ADDITION:

For example, the standard ASCII
   representation of an IP Version 4 address is "dotted decimal", also
   known as dotted quad. Other address types are expected to have ASCII
   representations that are mutually unique (e.g., for IP Version 6,
addresses
   are textually represented as eight groups of four hexadecimal digits
separated
   by colons, where two colons in a row can be used to replace a single set
of
   adjacent zero bytes). 

**** In the paragraph immediately following the aforementioned paragraph.
****

PROPOSED CHANGE/ADDITION:

Examples are "[email-masked]", "[email-masked]" or
   "doe@2201:056D::112E:144A:1E24" for a
   multi-user system. On a system with no user name, examples would be
   "sleepy.megacorp.com", "192.0.2.89" or "2201:056D::112E:144A:1E24".

----------
Regards,

Pete

-----Original Message-----
From: Colin Perkins [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 10:43 AM
To: Barany, Peter [RICH1:2H16:EXCH]
Cc: [email-masked]'
Subject: Re: [AVT] CNAME question 

--> "Peter Barany" writes:
>Colin,
>
>Thanks for the reply. Just one more point/question. Regarding the use of
>numeric address, the following is written in RFC 1889 (and RFC 1889bis):
>
>"For example, the standard ASCII
>   representation of an IP Version 4 address is "dotted decimal", also
>   known as dotted quad. Other address types are expected to have ASCII
>   representations that are mutually unique."
>
>Regarding IPv6 addresses, the standard representation is (from RFC 2373 and
>RFC 2373bis):
>
>"The preferred form is x:x:x:x:x:x:x:x, where the 'x's are the
>      hexadecimal values of the eight 16-bit pieces of the address.
>      Examples:
>
>         FEDC:BA98:7654:3210:FEDC:BA98:7654:3210
>
>         1080:0:0:0:8:800:200C:417A
>
>      Note that it is not necessary to write the leading zeros in an
>      individual field, but there must be at least one numeral in every
>      field (except for the case described in 2.)."
>
>If it is not too late, it might be a good idea to include this in RFC
>1889bis as there might be some confusion about the "non-dotted decimal"
>format of IPv6 addresses. Thanks.

If you have specific, and minor, textual changes we might be able to
include then during the RFC publication process. I'm not convinced the gain
is worthwhile though, since the IPv6 address representation is well defined.

Colin

---

From: Stephen Casner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 12:36:38 -0800 (PST)

Peter,

Thanks for the suggestion.  I expect that the IESG would be in favor
of including this change with the others that have been requested.

                                                        -- Steve

>    "sleepy.megacorp.com", "192.0.2.89" or "2201:056D::112E:144A:1E24".

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt