Keith Moore wrote:
I thank you for the acknowledgement that you have no counter
argument.
I didn’t think one was necessary because it was obvious from your
reply.
Surely, but I still thank you for the obvious and unnecessary
acknowledgement.
Or to put it another way: there are often many solutions to a
problem that could work if only (a) everyone else would somehow
magically agree to do things that way and/or (b) all other problems
and concerns somehow became irrelevant.
That is a political way to solve problems. To quote from wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_by_committee
The term is used to refer to suboptimal traits that such a
process may produce as a result of having to compromise
between the requirements and viewpoints of the
participants, particularly in the presence of poor
leadership or poor technical knowledge, such as needless
complexity, internal inconsistency, logical flaws, banality,
and the lack of a unifying vision.
Yes, IPv6 is designed by committee as is exemplified by total
lack of understanding by most committee members on relationships
between routing hierarchy and address length.
> There is also a sense in which I might agree with you that your
> solution is workable. It’s still not what I’d recommend, but
> arguing about it doesn’t seem like a worthwhile expenditure of
> energy.
That should be an opinion of the committee which has nothing to
do with engineering.
Masataka Ohta
