On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 2:15 AM, RJ Atkinson <[email protected]> wrote:
> So asking what form an ILNP Identifier takes demonstrates > purely laziness -- someone who can't be bothered to make > a reasonable effort to read existing readily available > documentation. Ran, for one thing, I must have read your ILNP document (draft-rja-ilnp-intro-*.txt) already three times over a different time period. But, dumb as I am, I haven't got an unambiguous message like 'EUI-64 is the ILNP ID syntax.' All I got was that it is just one of many possible address form for ILNP ID. (Now, as I have another look, you have said that in that way. Only that I was not attentive enough.) I mistakenly thought you were describing, with EUI-64, the case of generating local ID's. The effect might be as good as I haven't read it at all, but that's not true. To those who've developed this work for long, everything might be so obvious. But for some naive ones like me, I'm still struggling to exactly understand exact implications of ILNP. If you're not ready to answer questions so obvious to you, one option might be close this ML. All things are done and perhaps all objectives of the RRG have been achieved. ILNP is stable to be finalized/freezed, not any further explanations are needed. Why keep this ML still open to let some people expect to get more explanation to reconfirm the picture developing in their head or to give some comments? And not all comments have been any hostile to your document. Most only to get a clear picture or to reconfirmation. As one said, sorry for not being so professional, but I'd thought giving silly questions would be better than indifference or in remaining obscurity. In a way, I don't understand why you're so sensitive and even hostile to questions and comments on your document. It's a rather contrast to some other authors of other proposals who don't bother to repeat the same arguments/explanations over and over to bring bring people to understanding. Please have some patience to invite people to your side. Your document is excellent but I don't think it's a good idea to close this RG with just a handful of passionate advocators. Don't worry. There'll be any more questions/comments from me, at least. Good luck. -- DY _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
