> Bottom line is that IP-layer interception - even when done "right" - > has fairly limited applicability for location of nearby content. > Though the technique is so widely mis-applied that it might still be > useful to define what "right" means. And there you have the argument for publishing this document. I much prefer a model where we allow for free exchange of ideas, even bad ones. I tend to believe that if someone took the time to write up a document that there's probably some reason for it. So let's call this an experimental RFC and get on with life. Isn't that what the experimental category denotes? Derrell
- Re: breaking the IP model (or not) Keith Moore
- Re: breaking the IP model (or not) Erik Fair
- Re: breaking the IP model (or not) Keith Moore
- Re: breaking the IP model (or not) Brian E Carpenter
- Re: breaking the IP model (or not) Scott Brim
- Re: breaking the IP model (or not) Keith Moore
- Re: breaking the IP model (or not) Scott Brim
- Re: recommendation against publication of ... Keith Moore
- Re: recommendation against publication... Valdis . Kletnieks
- Re: recommendation against publication... Keith Moore
- Re: recommendation against publication... Derrell D. Piper
- Re: recommendation against publication... Keith Moore
- Re: recommendation against publication... Fred Baker
- Re: recommendation against publication... Keith Moore
- Re: recommendation against publication... Joe Touch
- Re: recommendation against publication of draft-cerpa-n... Dave Crocker
- Re: recommendation against publication of draft-ce... Keith Moore
- prohibiting RFC publication Dave Crocker
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Keith Moore
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Peter Deutsch
- Re: prohibiting RFC publication Keith Moore
