Having been inspired see my expanded comments inserted Heiner In einer eMail vom 25.07.2010 12:32:57 Westeuropäische Sommerzeit schreibt [email protected]:
Hi Heiner, This is crossing over the line from professional discourse into the unprofessional. Regards, Tony On Jul 24, 2010, at 11:31 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Short comments are inserted. > Heiner > > > In einer eMail vom 25.07.2010 01:49:57 Westeuropäische Sommerzeit schreibt [email protected]: > >> You can have privacy or mobility, but not both. > Wrong. > IMHO, this statement is wrong while assuming that in the current discussion we do not understand by privacy the objective of hiding the user's current (eventually compromising) location . > > > > Many people will be unhappy with having to choose between those two.... > True. Surely true, but - see above - such a choice isn't to be made. > > > Many people want a pony, too. > I am inclined to disagree. > > > If you want mobility, then you must signal to your correspondents. However, when you signal, you lose privacy. > Wrong. > The two are fundamentally incompatible > Wrong. Again, surely wrong given the made assumption, see above. I think the discussion has gone far off the network layer's turf. Wrt globally uniqueness of the identifier: Globally unique identifiers are fine, but don't have to be free of any single overlappings. IMHO, the chance of overlaps should be kept small, but eventual clashes should be envisioned and be handled by appropriate procedures. > , much like optimal routing and abstraction. > Wrong. Deeply wrong: As it looks like, this is once more with view to the allegeablely bad stretch-behavior of hierarchical routing. But there is an alternative as all do know. > > > Tony >
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
