Margaret, Randy, At 01:11 PM 6/11/2003, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
At 05:11 AM 6/12/2003 +0900, you wrote:> If so, would it be sufficient to place a comment in the text that says > that the prefix and subnet fields may be hierarchically assigned by ISPs > or site administrators? yes > I wouldn't want us to clutter up the diagrams with arbitrary levels of > hierarchy for each field, as implementations are not supposed to be > aware of any boundaries within these fields. what 'fields'? fp, ok. beyond that, i think that's the point.Okay, it sounds like we're in agreement here. Bob, does this work for you? Any remaining questions?
Works for me. How about if I change the text: where the global routing prefix is a (typically hierarchically- structured) value assigned to a site (a cluster of subnets/links), the subnet ID is an identifier of a subnet within the site, and the interface ID is as defined in section 2.5.1 of [ARCH]. to: where the global routing prefix is a (typically hierarchically- structured) value assigned to a site (a cluster of subnets/links), the subnet ID is an identifier of a subnet within the site, and the interface ID is as defined in section 2.5.1 of [ARCH]. The global routing prefix is designed to be hierarchically structured by the RIRs and ISPs, and the subnet field is designed to be hierarchically structured by site administrators. OK? Bob