-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 11/29/2010 11:59, Joel Jaeggli wrote: | Since 11/18/10 this discussion has generated something like 66 messages | across five threads on this list, on nanog and elsewhere. | | While some suggestions are entertaining, I would think of this criticism | and commentary on the document as useful if it winnowed the number of | options down to fewer rather than more. e.g. the positive result and the | path to advancement of this draft would be when the document produces a | solid recommendation on address part naming rather than several of them. | | Several recomendations do not get us further down the road to a common | set of terminology. If you're looking for serious feedback: 1. Any term using > 1 word is out 2. Any word using > 2 syllables is out 3. I've never had a problem calling it "field," I think that 5952 is a perfectly good normative ref for that, and I don't understand what the fuss is about. :) hth, Doug - -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (FreeBSD) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJM9A5mAAoJEFzGhvEaGryEGxEH/3rs0yOYma3fWHnHc20+fxPu CTcziNHpjjkvI0bAv0V+NFAxXO350iyv18KqufyEvCuGbkT/AETfOLAr+QsDa09X vvE7/sO+XEBNuGI1f2IZiDDZQ9M4u1L5Hx+stJ6chxASXzBUHPJdNamO5DbmKU6H Wxic2+XEtBl/EvX4yB/yBJOwT7R+gjgWcQjCZ06aPmi0N45fGohhsutv7fE93qlm GCxp6zQisr88rgdgs6HyJgwc36ZmVFCqEoT8IYBYDxwWYc28S4Wb0WWd3R3rs13E 3eNysvRPPv0UxALYgecLKc/C0HOTQjfgS4YplbFL/ltHzIRLs6qPXUJyNT3XC+4= =YBMa -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----