Not arguable in the fashion that you do. You seem to want to signal disagreement without needing to actually argue a contrary case. Cutting pieces out of someone's argument to make it look stupid is itself a stupid trick. On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 12:55 PM, David Conrad <drc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Apr 25, 2012, at 7:27 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >> Except at the very lowest levels of the protocol stack (IP and BGP) >> there is really no technical need for a namespace that is limited. > > Arguable, but irrelevant since the reality is that historically many (most?) protocols defined by the IETF to date used fixed length fields implying limitations in the number of identifiers in those namespaces. > >> We >> do have some protocols that will come to a crisis some day but there >> are plenty of ways that the code space for DNS, TLS etc can be >> expanded if we ever need to. > > Unfortunately, experience has demonstrated that most implementations of protocols do not handle potential expansion. > >> Even more wrong is the idea that IANA can actually act as suggested. > > You seem to have an odd idea of what is being suggested. However, experience has shown arguing with you is a waste of time so I'll let others engage if they care. > >> Weakness is strength > > > And we've always been at war with Eastasia. > > Regards, > -drc > -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/