-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 05:34:39PM +0200, Fred Baker wrote: > >> I think this is a mis-use of AUTH48; the working group has >> considered the draft and said what it wanted to say, and at this >> point the RFC Editor is asking you whether they changed the intent >> of the draft in the editing process or whether perhaps your address >> has changed. Changing the draft in a substantive way is out of scope >> of the question you are being asked. > > So the idea is to publish the wording as is and once the RFC pops up > we file an errata that clarifies that the sentence > > The use of symbol "::" MUST be used to its maximum capability. > > also implies that "::" MUST be used if there are at least two > consecutive 16-bit 0 fields. Or can we compromise on a less heavy > change, e.g. adding just before the quoted sentence. > > If at least two consecutive 16-bit 0 fields are present, the > symbol "::" MUST be used. > > This is a less invasive change (and I think the WG had previously some > concensus on this, but the WG chairs will know). But yes, the formally > correct procedure is likely the errata approach.
This is a very nice approach. So 4.2.1 would be like 4.2.1. Shorten as Much as Possible If at least two consecutive 16-bit 0 fields are present, the symbol "::" MUST be used, and used to its maximum capacity. For example, 2001:db8::0:1 is not acceptable, because the symbol "::" could have been used to produce a shorter representation 2001:db8::1. Regards, Seiichi > > /js > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) iEYEARECAAYFAkxaELsACgkQcrhTYfxyMkI6bwCeOSKP4uloNZOZE1VzcNWyk1am EiEAnAuC0Cu7XM/LVbZY5JrCKU7PROzE =lwEZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
