On Jun 21, 2007, at 17:22, Templin, Fred L wrote
From: Scott Leibrand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
That assertion has been made, but I don't think we can treat it as
anything more than a preference by non-technical business people.
[...] Some say: "probability of collision must be zero", and others
say: "birthday paradox says risk of collision is practically nil".
Wouldn't ULA-C satisfy both sides?
One of those two sides is presenting technical criteria for
satisfying unstated and mysterious non-technical goals. Is it too
much to ask for less mystery and more transparency in working group
proceedings?
--
james woodyatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
member of technical staff, communications engineering
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
