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 <[email protected]> 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/
