> > By the way I like Mike's proposal to make it (0..2040), which would > > line up with the max size of an InetAddress (255 octets). > > This makes indeed sense. One can ask whether this range should not be > added to the InetPrefixLength TC itself so that the range is already > bound to the TC. Of course, applying to your logic above, you would > repeat the range (0..2040) anyway just to be explicit that zero is > included... > > So what do we do? > > a) Add the range (0..2040) to the InetPrefixLength TC? (Now > is the right > time to do this.) > > b) Add the range (0..2040) just to the objects in question > that use the > InetPrefixLength TC? > > c) Do both? > > I think I prefer a) at the moment. > I agree that a) is the best solution.
And it does make the warning go away too! Bert > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen > <http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/> P.O. Box 750 561, > 28725 Bremen, Germany > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
