>On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 02:54:18AM +0900, JINMEI Tatuya / ?$B?@L@C#:H wrote:
>> It would be very confusing for the user to see they can simply reuse
>> the output of the diagnostic tool in some cases and they need to
>> convert the output in some other cases.
>I am with you here. And it might happen that implementations actually
>accept the cut'n'paste friendly format #3, even if that is not what
>the spec calls for.
>> Meanwhile, since the use of scope-zone notation must be limited within
>> a single node, the auxiliary notation (with v1 and +) that conforms to
>> the URI syntax doesn't actually help/affect interoperability.
>I would be careful about this. Management applications, for example,
>might write URIs containing zone ids to boxes to tell them what to do
>or read them just to find out what is going on. I agree that the
>interpretation is only meaningful within the context of the node; the
>interpretation, however, may happen very well outside the node.
>What is my position on this? I am undecided. As a user, I strongly
>dislike the notation #1 (and I doubt many humans will ever use it) but
>at the same time I do understand why the notation #3 makes people feel
>Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen
><http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/> P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany