On Wed, 2 May 2001, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Pekka;
>
> > > > > > Could you please show _exactly_ what part(s) you're referring to?
> > > > >
> > > > > If I say something is leagal with regard to RFC103[45], I am referring
> > > > > to the entire document of RFC103[45].
> > > >
> > > > Please show the main points why this should be accepted
> > >
> > > I say it leagal with regard to RFC103[45].
> > [snip]
> >
> > That does not prove anything.
>
> The proof is already given.
In mathematics, if you want to prove something [esp. complex], you just
can't toss a 1000-page book in front of someone and say "Believe me, it's
there! It really _is_ there! Just read it enough many times and you
might get it!". Steps to go backwards in your thinking, so that anyone
with some skill can take it, are required.
The same here.
You've shown yourself incapable of proving your point. I doubt that
too many people will side with, or understand, your "proof".
For all we know, you could just have made up that it should be correct.
> There are two ways to understand it.
>
> One is to fully understand all the details of RFC103[45], which
> you are incapable of.
>
> The other is to see whether Dan can provide a phrase of RFC103[45]
> to deny my example.
I have the impression that most people consider it either "grey" or
wrong; that was the way it was understood by the implementors at least.
It is not his job to prove the incorrectness. You claim it is correct;
You have to prove it.
Please, take the time and explain the legality in more detail.
--
Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
