Hi Tom,
On 10-08-04 01:30 PM, t.petch wrote:
errrrrrrr
Tom Petch
----- Original Message -----
From: "Suresh Krishnan" <[email protected]>
To: "Brian Haberman" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 6:15 PM
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-6man-text-addr-representation AUTH48 change
...
I am not certain whether this is appropriate, but I think this issue
should be fixed before publication. Otherwise the document fails to
achieve its stated goal. e.g. An address
2001:db8:0:0:0:0:2:1
can still show up as either
2001:db8:0:0:0:0:2:1 or 2001:db8::2:1
No it cannot
The use of the symbol "::" MUST be used to its maximum capability.
tells me utterly and explicitly that the second of these two is right and that
the first is wrong! IMHO!
Not really. The text you quoted does not state whether "::" MUST always
be used if it is possible to do so. It only states that when used, it
must be used to the maximum capability.
Cheers
Suresh
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
