zero suppression vs compression in addresses

[michael.dillon at bt.com]

> The intended status is Informational so if published as an 
> RFC I don't think the representation it promotes should be 
> considered canonical, just suggested.

Watch your language!
If your read
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kawamura-ipv6-text-representation-02>
you will notice that it uses the word "canonical"
several times. Also, the draft could very well change
status by the time it becomes an RFC, or another RFC
might cover this topic.

The point is that the text representation of IPv6 addresses
might be about to change, so if you are writing code to
read IPv6 text format addresses, you probably want to 
accept the format defined in this draft. Unless of course,
there is some fundamental flaw in which case you might 
want to communicate that to the author of the draft.

--Michael Dillon