On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 10:37 AM Masataka Ohta <mohta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> Ohta-san, your email (retained as the first part of the below) is not in
> my view fair criticism against poor engineering results. it is a baldly
> and badly expresssed personal opinion.
FYI, on 2019/10/15 16:10, I wrote to this list:
> Subject: Re: Sergeant-at-arms engagement model
> Keith Moore wrote:
>
>> The words "They also include criticizing an idea in an insulting
>> orexcessively hostile manner" are troubling. I realize that one
>> maycriticize an idea in such a way as to effectively be critical of the
>> person proposing the idea. And yet, it is essential that people be
>> able to discuss ideas candidly, and sometimes to criticize
>> ideasemphatically. I believe it's inappropriate to impugn a
>> participant's motive without supporting evidence of that motive. But
>> I don't believe it's wrong to point out any problem with an idea
>> itself, nor with potential ill effects of an idea, nor even with the
>> appearance of an idea. Sometimes this is a fine line, but it's
>> essential that the SAAs not interfere with vigorous discussion of
>> relevant ideas.
>
> Let me try.
>
> IPv6 with unnecessarily lengthy 16B addresses without valid
> technical reasoning only to make network operations prohibitively
> painful is a garbage protocol.
>
It could be. But IPv6 was made workable by clever modifications over time and now it works pretty well and widely used.
> LISP, which perform ID to locator mapping, which is best
> performed by DNS, in a lot less scalable way than DNS
> is a garbage protocol.
>
LISP should not have stayed that long in IETF, otherwise I am OK with defining protocols like that and trying.
Behcet
> Masataka Ohta
but SAAs did not act against it.
Masataka Ohta
