Margaret Wasserman wrote: > >There's been a lot of noise here lately, without real > reasons, and it > >has not produced much results either. > > At the point where you believe that a mail thread has reached > the end of its useful life, you should stop responding. When > everyone feels that way, it will end.
The problem with that theory is that the consensus is generally measured as a thread is dying down. If everyone that believes this attempt to subvert a long standing architectural decision is a waste, suddenly stopped sending, there would be a proclamation that SL is revoked. After all, there would be clear evidence that everyone that felt strongly enough to comment wanted it removed... The real point is that some app developers have figured out that having an architected space makes it easier for them to know when connectivity will be broken, but others have not. The arguments by those that have not figured it out are much more about disallowing 'broken connectivity' than they are about figuring out when that happens. Reality says that network managers want to, and will break connectivity when it is in their interest, and no amount of IETF documentation to the contrary will prevent that. We can choose to leave the network managers to figure out their own adhoc mechanisms, or we can put them in a structured space so that apps will have a chance to react appropriately. Tony -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
