>>>>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2002 17:53:15 +0100,
>>>>> Francis Dupont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Ahh, a nasty person might then ask: why are we burdening all other
> addresses with this <scope_type>
> <address>%<scope_type>.<id_in_the_scope>
> when they don't need it, and the only place where it would be needed
> (that MIB example), is not actually using address at all!
> => as my goal is to always use names I am neutral: to add scope types
> is not a real burden and this catches errors.
I agree. We'll basically use the format with readable "names" or in a
copy-and-paste manner, so this is not a real burden.
> But, of course I can guess why: the place where such notation occurs,
> is usually parsed as address, and it would be truly neat if it could
> handle the addressless zone id too.
> => this was the argument for the binary format. IMHO it is sound to
> reuse it for the textual format, so I am slightly in favor of initial
> Jinmei's proposal.
I (of course) agree. However, I admit that the question that Markku
raised can be an FAQ. So I'd propose to add a note in this section
that
- though it seems redundant to add scope type in <zone_id> when it is
used with an <address>, it does practically not matter.
- thus, we use the unified (generic) format everywhere rather than to
allow "optimized" notation.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
