John C Klensin wrote:
One has to do with whether the threshold for particular language being considered bad behavior is lower than it was a few years, or a decade or more, ago.
No, just last year.
I think the answer to that question is clearly "yes".
No, clearly no.
What is helpful, both to the debate and to the quality of the IETF's consensus and output, is an explanation of why you have reached that conclusion and, ideally when your conclusion is negative, suggestions about better alternatives.
So, you are saying my negative (???) statements like: : IPv6 with unnecessarily lengthy 16B addresses without valid : technical reasoning only to make network operations prohibitively : painful is a garbage protocol. : : 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. with explanations and alternatives are helpful for you. Without recognizing something bad, it is impossible to have constructive discussion to consider alternatives. Or, feel free to discuss IPv10 forever.
You might even convince people although in the two example above, I'd be surprised. It would also help with what I assume is one of your goals, i.e., to actually have your messages read rather than discarded because people have concluded you have nothing constructive or useful to say (again, regardless of the vocabulary you choose).
The reality is that, as I wrote to Keith: : Anyway, with my reconfirmation in 2021, there was discussion on IPv6 : which, I believe, concluded that using MAC address as part of IP : address is layer violation because MAC address length affect : IP address format. : : But, in 2021, seemingly, no one was serious for LISP. my statement against IPv6 initiated some constructive discussion. Masataka Ohta
