nanog mailing list archives
Re: Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming
From: Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist () gmail com>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 12:56:57 +0100
Please don't group several emails into one. It breaks threads. And while I could not find anything about this in the NANOG FAQ, it's common netiquette not to do so. On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 23:50, William Herrin <bill () herrin us> wrote:
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Joel Jaeggli <joelja () bogus com> wrote:
Looks like an ass-u-me. If you think the use if IPv4 addresses in URLs is infrequent, it's mostly "u." Get out in the field some time.
Ad hominem usually does not do much to maintain or improve the quality of a discussion.
That server op is the kind of guy we're asking to understand that there's nothing special about the two bytes between the colons in the IPv6 address. He's gonna be trouble.
As you described yourself, he is gonna be trouble anyway. People end up working around him anyway, so why bother to cater to his needs? Especially as the fixed colons are here to stay and a good thing, also.
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 1:42 PM, <Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu> wrote:
Whatever you want to do. That's the point of optional/movable separators.
Principle of least surprise.
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:
That would be a more compelling argument if it accurately described phone number notation. It doesn't. "+44 121 410 5228," for example, is the phone number for parking services at Heathrow airport, exactly as described on http://www.heathrowairport.com/'s "contact us" page. No dashes at all, and not 10 digits.
The UK is not part of the USA nor of Canada.
IPv6 is one of very few addressing schemes in which the separators intentionally have no greater meaning within the protocol or its use.
As has been pointed out several times before, helping humans reduce errors is a highly desirable goal. _And_ the discussion is moot anyway. I think I am at a point where I will simply ignore any new occurrences of this theme. Richard
Current thread:
- Re: Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming, (continued)
- Re: Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming Owen DeLong (Nov 22)
- Re: Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming Richard Hartmann (Nov 22)
- Re: Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming William Herrin (Nov 22)
- Re: Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming Richard Hartmann (Nov 22)
- Re: Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming William Herrin (Nov 22)
- Re: Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming Richard Hartmann (Nov 22)
- Re: Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming Owen DeLong (Nov 22)
- Re: Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming Richard Hartmann (Nov 22)
- Re: Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming Joel Jaeggli (Nov 22)
- Re: Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming William Herrin (Nov 22)
- Re: Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming Richard Hartmann (Nov 22)
- Re: Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming Owen DeLong (Nov 22)
- Re: Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming Nick Hilliard (Nov 22)
- Re: Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming Joel Jaeggli (Nov 22)
- RE: Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming George Bonser (Nov 22)
- RE: Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming kmedcalf () dessus com (Nov 26)
- Re: Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming Owen DeLong (Nov 26)
- Conclusions? - Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming Joel Jaeggli (Nov 29)
- Re: Conclusions? - Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming Doug Barton (Nov 29)
- Re: [v6ops] Conclusions? - Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming Richard Hartmann (Nov 30)
- Re: Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming Jeff Aitken (Nov 22)