Not any more.. no more. On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 3:40 AM, Dae Young KIM <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
-- DY _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
