I knew you couldn't say it.
Dave Crocker wrote: > > At 03:17 AM 10/29/2001 -0600, Eric A. Hall wrote: > >Dave Crocker wrote: > > > > Going with ACE-only directly equates to two mandatory encodings. > > > > This is an incredibly high cost to lay on the Internet > > > >It is not possible for two encodings to > >be as efficient for the community as a single shared encoding. > > Please attend to the difference between "incredibly high cost" and "not as > efficient". There is nothing contradictory in having the former be NOT > true at the same time as the latter IS true. > > One of the problems with your use of injudicious language is that it lacks > precision. A cost can exist, but be small. > > >I have said several times quite clearly that ACE is necessary as a > >backwards compatibility mode for legacy applications. > > Doing one specific piece of work, now, and deferring pursuit of an > additional specification, for additional changes to the DNS, is standard > IETF practise. > > Since you are (correctly) declaring that we do need to do an ACE approach, > there is no debate. > > So let's move on. > > d/ > > ps. this line of debate is now closed, since I will not be responding > further and it takes two to have a debate. > > ---------- > Dave Crocker <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com> > tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464 -- Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
