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

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

Hello Alex,

I don't mind discussing with you.  But I really don't
like having to point out your false statements so
often.

Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> Charles E. Perkins a écrit :
> [...]
> > 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's very simple why: I have a prototype which involves protocol
> extensions (RA) only on the parts of the System which use exclusively
> link-locals addresses.  You forbidding link-local addresses equates with
> forbidding my protocol extensions on the core of my prototype, makes 
> all break.

I _do not_ forbid link-local addresses.  I'm not even one of the
document authors, and I didn't create that language.

But the document does not forbid link-locals either.

So how many times do you persist in making this false
statement, and, worse, basing your repeated, iterated,
verbose, relentless, and seemingly misguided objections
based on the false notion that link-locals are forbidden?

> > 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.
>
> Is this formulation ok, or an "only" missing somewhere?

...???...

> If you keep that formulation as is - I agree with it!
>
> > So why do link-locals insist on "their way come hell or high water"?
>
> BEcause I don't want my prototype discarded by an illogical sense of 
> forbidding LLs.

And in what universe does that prohibition reside?

Regards,
Charlie P.