Subject: Re: Application software needs to be "zeroconf-aware"?

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 18:31:42 -0500

On Wed, 8 Jan 2003 12:57:24 -0600
Ted Lemon <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > So you are admitting that v4LL does not meet the IETF criteria for
> > proposed standard, which say nothing about "not treading new ground"
> > but do say "no known technical omissions".
> 
> No, Keith, I don't think he's beaten his wife lately.

you are exaggerating,  I'm not.  John did say there were known problems
with v4LL.  My point is that such problems mean that v4LL in its current
state does not qualify for proposed standard status.  This is not an
exaggeration, it's just a logical inference based on John's assertion
and the plain language of RFC 2026.
--
Keith Moore                              http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/
27 February 1933                                     11 September 2001

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 18:03:04 -0600

> you are exaggerating,  I'm not.

No, I was actually expressing my exact impression of the semantic 
content of your message.   I am sorry if I read your message in a way 
other than that which you intended.

If you are interested in having an earnest debate, then why don't you 
say precisely what it is that is a known problem with v4ll in the sense 
intended by RFC2026, and then we can talk about that?   In another 
message, I suggested an aspect of the FTP protocol that we could use to 
have this debate - perhaps you'd like to take a stab at that one?

If you are not interested in having this sort of debate, then you can 
signify that by not making a precise statement about what is a known 
problem with v4ll in the sense intended by RFC2026, and then we can all 
move on.