Re: [Autoconf] issues with draft-baccelli address model

["Charles E. Perkins" <charles.perkins at earthlink.net>]

Hello Teco,

Teco Boot wrote:
> Again and again and again. Can you check what "practical"
> means? We are chartered for it. Not for "all" or "general".
>   

Since a good number of solutions have been proposed that
do resolve the "general" network problem, your argument loses
all of its force.  If there were some indication that the general
case was too hard, then you might have a complaint.

So far the only hard problem seems to be how to avoid
squabbling over whether link-locals are needed.  I am not
sure why the proponents of necessity are so adept at
ignoring the solutions that do not need link-locals.  It is
not explainable by the existence of solutions that use
link-locals, because such solutions are universally
acknowledged to be useful in their realm of applicability.

So why do link-locals insist on "their way come hell
or high water"?

> See also Jari his last posting. This motivated me keep telling
> what I am doing and what the problems are. This also makes very 
> clear we shall stop boil the ocean.
>   

I agree with that.

Regards,
Charlie P.