The whole point of this document is to move the current TLA/NLA
assignment rules to historic, removing the fixed internal
hierarchy from IPv6 addresses... It is no longer reasonable
for implementations to assume that there is any hierarchy to
these addresses, other than the bitwise hierarchy inherent in
CIDR-based/longest-match forwarding algorithms. So, I think it
would be misleading and potentially confusing to add hierarchy
fields to the address diagrams.
Of course, in reality, registries and enterprises can and often
do allocate addresses hierarchically. But, that doesn't affect
the structure of IPv6 addresses.
My reading of the comment is that the reviewer wants the same thing - to
say that the one who gets the allocation to play with can put in hierarchy
at any bit boundary he/she/it wants, and that CIDR-based longest-match
will make the Right Thing happen. Randy - is that what you wanted?