Subject: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation-01.txt>

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:00:47 -0700

All,

This message starts a 2-week 6MAN Working Group Last Call on advancing:

	Title           : A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation
	Author(s)       : S. Kawamura, M. Kawashima
	Filename        : draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation-01.txt
	Pages           : 14
	Date            : 2009-10-18

as a Proposed Standard.  Substantive comments and statements of  
support for advancing this document should be directed to the mailing  
list. Editorial suggestions can be sent to the document editor.  This  
last call will end on November 5, 2009.

Regards,
Bob Hinden & Brian Haberman
6MAN Chairs

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 14:44:43 +0200

I support it.

Half-substantive and half-editorial comments follow.

draft:
> When the length of the
>    consecutive 16 bit 0 fields are equal (i.e. 2001:db8:0:0:1:0:0:1),
>    the former is shortened.

The "former" when reading it left-to-right western latin style?  Maybe 
better "The most significant if represented in network byte order"?  Or 
similar.

Is there any intention to suggest this choice of placement of :: to the 
IEEE Unix ("Austin Group") who standardizes what inet_pton and ntop do:
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/

?

Or at least add a reference in the draft about the inet_ntop and pton 
standardization documents, which are IEEE (outside of IETF).

Finally, is there some implementation prototyping in support of 
recommendation of section 4?  I think there may be already.

Alex

Bob Hinden a écrit :
> as a Proposed Standard.  Substantive comments and statements of support 
> for advancing this document should be directed to the mailing list. 
> Editorial suggestions can be sent to the document editor. 

Who is the document editor?

Alex

  This last
> call will end on November 5, 2009.
> 
> Regards,
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email-masked]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: Seiichi Kawamura <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:12:20 +0900

Hi Alex

Thanks for your support and comments.
Please see inline.

> better "The most significant if represented in network byte order"?  Or

Yes, former as in western latin.

> http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/

Appendix A notes that inet_ntop (of FreeBSD7.0) follows Section 4.
Linux implementations that I checked works the same also, but
I've had a few people tell me some do not work this way.
I've not been able to confirm this, but in most cases
inet_ntop already does follow Sec4 placement of ::s

> recommendation of section 4?  I think there may be already.

inet_ntop :-)
and ipv6calc works very nice too.

Regards,
Seiichi

>> list. Editorial suggestions can be sent to the document editor. 
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:52:02 +1300

I fully support this draft.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 2009-10-23 07:00, Bob Hinden wrote:
> Editorial suggestions can be sent to the document editor.  This last