Subject: RE: IPv6 Address Architecture update question

From: Jeroen Massar <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 14:56:54 +0100

On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 08:34 -0500, Bound, Jim wrote:
> I am not speaking to you anymore on the IETF and I do recall you now
> from Brussels and your manners were the same there and your innuendos
> without facts.

Ahem? I *asked* you a simple question then: "What is the actual usage".
This is what I ask mostly anybody I meet who is saying they are doing
IPv6 connectivity, just out of pure interest and also most of the time
to try and help people out to get actual traffic on the wires and to get
it to the end users.

I always present facts, but as you can't come up with them you
apparently like to only put me off as a child. Well you are playing this
game the completely wrong way.

I am quite sure that the Chairs of this WG and the Area Directors can
give some good comments about this style of messaging from you. Of
course if it seems unfit what I am doing they can say that also, please
do, but I think that those people at least will come up with an exact
list of items what is so wrong about me then.

> You insulted me and others thus you forfeit your right
> to respect, at least from me, for some period. I or no one on this mail
> list should have to put up with whiny gutless wonder email insulting
> anal retentive commentary.

Can you please tell me what did I insult you with? Is a question, such
as the above so bad? I really wonder what I did to you to receive such
answers from you. Which wrong side of the bed did you woke up from for
the last couple of years?

>  Period. I will respond to you with my private
> thoughts on your behavior and I believe you need a serious attitude
> adjustment, and I am very open to helping you make that adjustment in
> person some day. I will be back to you via personal email account and
> will make it very clear to you how out of line you are and a few other
> suggestions privately.

I am very sorry for you that you have to act in such a way, certainly
with all those 'nice supportive' and backed-up words you are mentioning
above. Looks more like it is time to start fathering your own kids
instead of trying to be the big bad bully and trying to push me in a
corner, which really won't work with me, you picked the wrong person.

I thought that the IETF was supposed to be an organization of
professionals who could talk to each other, but the only thing you can
come up with is accusations which don't make any sense at all.

Greets,
 Jeroen

PS: I really hope that somebody else is typing those silly messages on
your behalf, you could claim that btw, no PGP signature ;)

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 09:30:26 -0500

> 
> >   I emphatically disagree
> > with Itojun, cmetz, et al referenced and we had this debate
> many years
> > ago, then again had the debate, and that view lost and we
> should not
> > revisit it again.
> 
> You mean some people shoved the arguments away without having any 
> background in the subject?

Your statement above was the insult.  We can discuss offline this is now
not an IETF issue but until we resolve this privately it is best you and
I not talk further in this forum.

/jim

---

From: Tim Hartrick <[email-masked]>
Date: 02 Feb 2005 16:03:24 -0800

All,

On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 13:32, Tony Hain wrote:
> 
> That separation was a point in time implementation choice that is likely to
> change in other versions of the OS. The split stack implementation by itself
> does not preclude the right thing from happening through either a shim or
> direct binding between the stacks, but by default there is no path. 
> 
> None of this or any other individual vendor's implementation choice affects
> the value of the idea. The only thing those affect are the implementation
> effort required for the app developer. Getting rid of a good idea does not
> make the app developer's job any easier; it just ensures that everyone has
> to go through the same level of pain. Taking it out is a bad idea.
> 

I agree with Tony completely.  The answer for dealing with buggy or
expediently designed:-) implementations is not to throw capabilities out
of the specifications until the bugs become features.  The answer is to
fix the the implementations.

Tim Hartrick