Re: Review of draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec-02

I always thought "IPvN" would make more sense, but I think
someone said that would be confused with something *else*.

On a personal note, I've probably done a lot more with IPX
than anyone else that's ever looked at the unified spec,
and the similarity has never caused me any problems beyond
the occasional twinge of memories.
-don

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
> Christian Vogt
> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 8:24 AM
> To: Stephen Nadas
> Cc: Jari Arkko; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [VRRP] Review of draft-ietf-vrrp-unified-spec-02
> 
> 
> Hi Steve -
> 
> Thanks for attending to this review to quickly.
> 
> > Regarding the terminology, the draft explicitly states why 
> we didn't  
> > use
> > "IP" though technically correct to mean "IPv4 or IPv6".  I  
> > personally am
> > less worried about IPvX being mistaken for IPX than I am about IP  
> > being
> > mistaken for IPv4 (and not IPv6).  How would you feel about s/IPvX/ 
> > IPxZ/?
> 
> OK, I understand.  I would personally go for "IPv4 or IPv6", but you  
> decide.
> 
> > BTW, there are theads started on VRRP list to discuss Mark 
> Handley's  
> > TSV
> > directorate review.
> 
> Yes, very good.  I have seen them.
> 
> - Christian
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> vrrp mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp
_______________________________________________
vrrp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vrrp