[ppml] Version think... was: alternative to 2005-1
michael, since you didn't get the hint, i'll say it straight out -- you and
i are talking WAY TOO MUCH on this thread, and most folks aren't listening
to us, and to the extent that we keep going back and forth on minor nits
and wordplay, we're going to make this whole argument unreadable. this is
my third PPML post today, and i plan to give it two days rest now. please
do the same.
# > sadly, yes i do. there has been reasonable debate here as to the long
# > term viability of a "let ipv6 have an ipv4-like swamp" strategy.
# Until the opponents of an IPv6 swamp define what a "swamp" is and why it is
# bad, you are likely to gain few supporters. Oh, and it wouldn't hurt to
# explain why you consider that a particular policy proposal will lead to a
# bad swamp.
i didn't say it was a swamp and the people likely to support my amendment are
not calling it a swamp either. i'm saying there has been reasonable debate on
the swamp topic, and the swamp topic is considered contentious enough that if
we wade into it we'll be neck deep in muck. (although, "how would we notice?")
that's all for me until thursday. i recommend that delong and dillon likewise
go into quiet mode and let the less voiciferous among us be heard.