I would have liked to specify IP addresses in CIDR notation and not with a netmask. The documentation doesn't specify how to do this. Moreover, it seems that there are several variants available.
Edited for clarity: RFC 4632 deprecates the outdated Class A/B/C segmentation of address space in favor of classless addressing, and naturally it uses CIDR prefix notation to, well, describe CIDR. Nowhere does it discourage the use of quad-dotted notation (which carries the exact same information as CIDR prefixes).
Let me chime in (because we had similar run ins in the recent past), yes, please try to accomodate to the fact that in a public forum maximally terse postings generally do not drive the discussion in a productive direction.
Generally, if you do not have the time to explicitly explain your position well enough others might understand the rationale, consider twice whether posting something terse has sufficient utility to be worth posting at all? Sure there are threads asking for pure oppions, but even there an oppinion with a rationale typically is more helpful.
I guess if one assumes only special cases like 255.255.255.0 where full bytes are zerod out that might be a confusion one can end up in, but once one realises that 255.255.255.128 is also a valid quad dotted notation the confusion should dissipate....
