Subject: Introducing draft-6man-addresspartnaming

From: Richard Hartmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 22:07:11 +0200

Dear all,

Fred Baker asked me to move draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming-04 [1]
to 6man. Thus, we are reintroducing it as
draft-6man-addresspartnaming-00 without changing anything in the
actual text.

The DENOG reference has been removed for internal and political
reasons but this ID still stems from within part of the community
calling itself DENOG and enjoys broad support.

draft-6man-addresspartnaming-00 has been uploaded, but it's not
released yet as the secretary still needs to make manual changes to
document the transition properly.

Anyway, after a long time of gathering feedback, we have boiled down
the options to hextet and quibble. quibble remains in there mostly for
historic reasons and to gather additional feedback. I do not think
suggesting two separate terms is useful in the least and we hope to
get input on this. The main problem with it is that quibble is
overloaded in English and in a negative way. My money is on consensus
evolving to drop it in -01.

The second question on my mind is if using MUST for hextet is
appropriate. Using SHOULD is fine as well though I personally think
MUST is better to avoid any and all potential confusion.

We are really looking forward to any and all feedback,
this issue might not seem to be important at first, but many/most
people tend to reconsider after some thinking,
thanks,

Richard Hartmann

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming-04

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 14:52:43 -0700

Richard,

It is good to discuss this in 6man on the IPv6 list, but if you are going to resubmit the draft it should be named something like:

  draft-hartmann-6man-addresspartnaming-00

as it is an individual draft, not a 6man working group document.

Thanks,
Bob

On Apr 7, 2011, at 1:07 PM, Richard Hartmann wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email-masked]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Richard Hartmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 02:26:43 +0200

>  draft-hartmann-6man-addresspartnaming-00

The main work is shared between two editors listed alphabetically so I
am unsure how to name this fairly. Suggestions?
draft-donnerhackehartmann-6man-addresspartnaming-00 is a tad too long
;)

Thanks,
Richard

---

From: Karl Auer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 11:54:09 +1000

> MUST is better to avoid any and all potential confusion.

"hextet" - oh dear. Were there really no better suggestions than quibble
and hextet? Sorry for missing the earlier discussions, an I'll pull my
head in if it's really gone that far down the track, but "hextet" is
wrong on o many levels. It implies that it consists of six things - like
a quintet (5), septet(7) or triplet(3). The idea that a hextet is four
hex digits is very counter-intuitive.

What about "quad"? IPv4 has "dotted quad", but I've never heard that
notation referred to as "quad" without the "dotted". I doubt there would
be confusion regardless, and certainly not in context. "Quad" accurately
conveys the sense of "four", there are four hex digits in each section
of an uncompressed IPv6 address etc - seems like a good word.

However, "field" is even better. It's straightforward and gets around
the fact that the chunk between two colons in an IPv6 address is often
*not* actually four hex digits. It may represent any number of hex
digits from zero to 32! For such a thing, "hextet"and "quad" are both
very wrong. "Field" would remain correct, however.

An invented word, unless it has the same quirky, geeky humor of "byte"
and "nibble", is most unlikely to be generally adopted.

Definitely "SHOULD", not "MUST". People will say what they say.
 
> people tend to reconsider after some thinking,

I confess I thought at first you might be joking....

Regards, K.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer ([email-masked])                   +61-2-64957160 (h)
http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer/                   +61-428-957160 (mob)

GPG fingerprint: DA41 51B1 1481 16E1 F7E2 B2E9 3007 14ED 5736 F687
Old fingerprint: B386 7819 B227 2961 8301 C5A9 2EBC 754B CD97 0156

---

From: Richard Hartmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 04:03:31 +0200

On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 03:54, Karl Auer <[email-masked]> wrote:

> and hextet?

If you look at -02 of the initial draft, you will find a full list.
Googling for the name of the ID will bring up a lot of discussions on
various related lists. Finally, hextet and quibble came out _far_
ahead of all other options. FWIW, hextet is the short form of
hexadectet.

> However, "field" is even better.

Field is overloaded and not unique. If anything you would have to say
"IPv6 field" which is bulky and context-sensitive.

> and "nibble", is most unlikely to be generally adopted.

Why? It's a unique identifier without pre-existing meaning in the
relevant context.

> Definitely "SHOULD", not "MUST". People will say what they say.

The MUST refers to written documentation. This might or might not
change depending on feedback.

> I confess I thought at first you might be joking....

I assure you I am not.

In somewhat unrelated news, "Karl Auer" is a famous persona of a
German comedian. I doubt you named yourself after him, but I always
wondered and context is fitting, atm.

Thanks for your feedback,
Richard

---

From: Karl Auer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 18:05:15 +1000

> If you look at -02 of the initial draft, you will find a full list.

OK. I've read it and find many of the arguments to be generally
unconvincing. Right with you on "chazwazza" though :-)

If the draft is to document what amounts to a popularity contest for a
word, then that's fine, but it would be more honest if it said so,
rather than presenting such thin arguments. If there are going to be
arguments for and against, they need to be considerably stronger and
more relevant than most of those offered in -02.

My argument against "hextet" is simple. It is not a legitimate
abbreviation of "hexadectet" for two reasons. Firstly, you can't
abbreviate "hexadec-" because to do so changes it's meaning from "16-"
to "because, along the model of "quintet", "septet" and "octet" (and to
a lesser extent triplet), the word "hextet" strongly suggests a set of
six things. In contrast to blander options like "chunk" "field" and
"segment", it is misleading - there may be zero to four hex digits
between two colons, and there are three to eight colon-delimited parts
in an IPv6 address. There is no "sixness" in what the word is trying to
describe.

The argument about uniqueness and context is covered below.

> ahead of all other options. FWIW, hextet is the short form of

Well, thanks be! :-) It's still bad though.

> "IPv6 field" which is bulky and context-sensitive.

Not at all. There are literally tens of thousands of words in English
alone that are not unique in meaning and require context to be properly
understood. "Field" is one of them - so are "address", "bit" and
"colon", for that matter. In the context of IPv6 addresses, there would
be no more ambiguity with "field" than there would be for, say, "bit",
which could mean "a binary digit" or "a small piece" unless qualified by
context:

  "Er, which bit of the address are we talking about, Marvin?"
  "The interface ID, Trevor; the bit after the prefix."
  "Oh, right, you mean the bit starting at bit 65?"
  "Yeah, though we could move back a couple of bits to give
      us a bit more room in the subnet, I suppose."
  "That'd be a bit pointless though, wouldn't it?"
  "Well, yeah, a bit."

"Hextet" is jargon for the sake of jargon. IMHO.

> > An invented word, [...] is most unlikely to be generally adopted.
> 

No point arguing about whether it will or will not be adopted. Let's see
if anyone is calling them hextets five years from now. My money is on
"nope".

> wondered and context is fitting, atm.

I'm named Karl after my father. Auer is a pretty common Austrian
surname. Apart from the comedian, there's a quite famous furniture
designer called Karl Auer, a chemist/physicist who was Baron von
Welsbach (sadly no relation), and a Waffen-SS Sturmbannfuehrer and
recipient of the Iron Cross (happily no relation). And if you say my
name quickly, you get "kalauer", which is the German word for a stale
joke :-)

Regards, K.

---

From: Richard Hartmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 12:01:03 +0200

> unconvincing. Right with you on "chazwazza" though :-)

That's fine. This is why we are here :)

> rather than presenting such thin arguments.

I am not sure why or how you see this as a popularity contest. We
solicited feedback from everywhere and went with the results that
showed the most promise of broad and general consensus across both the
IETF lists and actual operators around the world.

> abbreviation of "hexadectet" for two reasons.

That as may be, it's a nice, short, precise, unique term. It's not
unheard of that terms are not 100% correct but widely accepted and in
general use. This may not be perfect, but it shows signs of consensus.
As you will certainly agree, a commonly term that is in wide an
accepted use is better than the current confusion.

As you said it's very late in the game, but you are more than welcome
to make an alternate suggestion.

> there may be zero to four hex digits
> in an IPv6 address.

This point is half moot as I am agreeing that hextet is not a perfect,
"merely" the best, option. Still, no matter how you represent those 16
bits, they are 16 bits. Either way, if anything, this representation
issue makes the argument for a not-quite-technically-perfect stronger,
imo.

> which could mean "a binary digit" or "a small piece" unless qualified by

In technical context, "bit" is reasonably unique to determine that you
are referring to a single boolean value.
As soon as you are talking about an IPv6 bit, an IPv4 bit or a
Mibibytes' bit, you need to add context, though.

This is something we would like to avoid for IPv6 "fields".

"Field" is perfect inasmuch as it describes pretty much anything.
Point in case, the IPv6 RFCs refer to fields (while _not_ specifying
this as a definite term, merely as a placeholder as they had to use
some name).
"Field" is horrible inasmuch as it describes pretty much anything.

Bit vector is another technically correct choice which is horribly
overloaded with context-sensitive meanings.

The goal is to say "look at the fourth hextet" and not "look at the
fourth thing, that IPv6 field. Yes, you know what I mean. Yes, it's
nice that you call it chazwazza. Would you stop this and look at it,
please?"

> And if you say my

Which is why the Comedian chose it. He says it quickly and slurs it.
Enough off topic chatter though, the com.au threw me off, last I
checked it did not mean .austria ;)

Richard

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 12:00:26 +0100

> MUST is better to avoid any and all potential confusion.

Maybe hextet will grow on me.   I'll start using it and see what funny looks or comments I get :)

I also wouldn't object to people saying that an IPv6 address consists of eight hexadecimal quads (given quad is used elsewhere for groups of 4 things).

I would say SHOULD though not MUST.   If it catches on, people will just use it.

Tim

---

From: Scott Schmit <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 07:24:41 -0400

> "segment", it is misleading - there may be zero to four hex digits
                                                          ^^^^^^^^^^
> in an IPv6 address. There is no "sixness" in what the word is trying to

So, you're talking about base-6 digits when you say "hex digits", right?
I wasn't aware that anybody used base-6 notation in computing...

In other words, there is precedent here. :-)

-- 
Scott Schmit

---

From: james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 09:21:24 -0700

On Apr 8, 2011, at 4:00 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
> 
> Maybe hextet will grow on me.   I'll start using it and see what funny looks or comments I get 

I would have preferred "hexquad" but nobody ever listens to me.

--
james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
member of technical staff, core os networking

---

From: Richard Hartmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 22:23:48 +0200

Hi all,

after renaming to draft-hartmann-6man-addresspartnaming, I am still
waiting for feedback.

I am not sure how the exact procedures are: Does lack of feedback mean
people are mostly OK with this or that no one cares? Am I too
impatient? Should I be doing something I am not doing yet?

If I am not getting more feedback soonish, I will most likely release
-01 over the weekend and would then start at looking for ways to get
this accepted as a WG item.

As always, any and all feedback appreciated :)

Richard

---

From: Doug Barton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:58:43 -0700

On 04/14/2011 13:23, Richard Hartmann wrote:
> people are mostly OK with this or that no one cares?

To be painfully honest, most likely the latter, sorry. I've never had a 
problem with "field" as the description, and have never been confused 
because that's not a unique term. I agree with Karl that hextet is right 
out. I actually like the term quibble, because of (rather than in spite 
of) its alternate meaning, given how contentious various elements of v6 
design have been, and continue to be. (It also rhymes with nibble.)

OTOH, I did think of another candidate, felco (mash-up of "field between 
the colons"). Apparently this name is used by a brand of pruning shears, 
but I seriously doubt anyone would get them confused. My feelings won't 
be hurt if no one thinks this is an improvement, I'm ambivalent about it 
myself. :)

hth,

Doug

-- 

	Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
			-- OK Go

	Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
	Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/

---

From: Scott Schmit <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 20:17:13 -0400

On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 01:58:43PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> To be painfully honest, most likely the latter, sorry. I've never
> had a problem with "field" as the description, and have never been
> confused because that's not a unique term. I agree with Karl that
> hextet is right out. I actually like the term quibble, because of
> (rather than in spite of) its alternate meaning, given how
> contentious various elements of v6 design have been, and continue to
> be. (It also rhymes with nibble.)

I happen to agree. I don't see the point. After all, what are the
numbers between the dots in IPv4 addresses called?

-- 
Scott Schmit

---

From: Richard Hartmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 02:48:36 +0200

> numbers between the dots in IPv4 addresses called?

Octects.

Richard

---

From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 19:55:13 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Richard Hartmann
> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 8:49 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: Scott Schmit
> Subject: Re: Introducing draft-6man-addresspartnaming
> 

I also don't find this all that big a deal, but here's another suggestion.

If we are to limit ourselves to two syllables, anything wrong with "hexdec" for singular, "hexdecs" for plural? A very easy global change to the I-D.

Bert

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:10:53 +0000

> after renaming to draft-hartmann-6man-addresspartnaming, I am still

Hi,

I've been thinking and reading about it. I believe that if this doc will standardize anything, then it should be linguistically correct.
As a consequence, "hextet" can't be even mentioned for official documents. If official documents writers want/have to use a word (rather than "bits 33 to 48"), they have to use something correct. In my opinion the IETF can't just mess with linguistic for the fun of it. 

If we split "octet" :
"octo-" + "-et"

So in theory :
"hexadecim-" + "-et" = "hexadecimet"

(the "t" in "hexdectet" comes from "oct-" not from "-et", so it's incorrect as well)

So my proposal as an individual that has absolutely no authority about the matter is :

1 : "hexadecimet" [in English : /ˌhɛksəˈdɛsəmɛt/] MUST be used in official documents.
2 : delete any mention of quibble, hextet, hexadectet, or other variants.

Let's leave it up to people to decide which one they want to use for informal communication and have this doc standardize only the exact only official naming for IETF documents.

Guillaume

---

From: Jared Mauch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 09:27:36 -0400

> Let's leave it up to people to decide which one they want to use for informal communication and have this doc standardize only the exact only official naming for IETF documents.

[having actually read the draft]

Seems as reasonable as anything else.  I certainly see the interest in disclosing the alternates considered, the formal document should likely omit these and some other reference (e.g.: list archive) should refer to the historical suggestions.

- Jared