I read and I agree with the document except for Appendix A. For one, I disagree that v4 mapped addresses are not recommended. They're commonly used for sockets that support both IPv4 and IPv6.
Secondly, ISATAP (RFC5214) and IPv4-translated (RFC2765) addresses are not mentioned and they also use the decimal form in the low 32 bits. I would recommend moving up into the body of the doc a discussion of the ambiguity between, for example ::ffff:127.0.0.1 ::ffff:7f00:1 And explicitly recommend that forms for which dotted decimal is legal should always be displayed with dotted decimal rather than hex. -Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Brian Haberman > Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 3:41 AM > To: IPv6 WG Mailing List > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Review requested: draft-kawamura-ipv6-text-representation-02 > > 6MAN WG, > A document (draft-kawamura-ipv6-text-representation-02) has been > sent to the v6ops list for comment. The ADs and chairs have determined > that it is more appropriate for the 6MAN WG since we are the home for > any work updating the base specifications. This draft proposes changes > to the textual representation of IPv6 addresses in order to avoid > confusion between different ways of writing the same address. > > I would like the WG to review and comment on this document on the > list. > > Regards, > Brian > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
