Subject: OT: Argh, mea culpa ;_; (was Re: A strawman analysis on locator identifiers vs. non-locator identifiers (was Re: A roadmap for end-point identifiers?))

From: "Eugene M. Kim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 13:54:00 -0700

I apologize for the bad formatting of my previous message (from which an
excerpt is quoted below).  Really have to find another e-mail program
for Windows that properly reformats the quote so it can be within 72
characters per line...  (Suggestions?)

/me bonks head against wall

Thanks,
Eugene

----- Original Message ----- 
> > Keith,
> >
> > KM> DNS names are not sufficient for rendezvous or referral.
> >
> >  Here are the arguments about the names, themselves, that you put
forward:
> >
> > KM>     * Incompatible with existing transport protocols.
> >
> > If you mean that they are too long to be carried in IP packet
headers, you
> > are of course correct.  If you mean something else, please explain.
> >
> > However, your concern presupposes that the identifiers must be
carried in
> > those protocol -- or rather, that they must be carried in them
frequently.

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