Re: [dnsop] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-dnsop-misbehavior-against-aaaa-00.txt

["J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <[e-mail]>]

At 18:10 26/03/04, Jim Reid wrote:
>Let's kill this pointless debate on the meaning of "global" for once
>and for all.
>
>Here's the definition in Chamber's English Dictionary. That's a
>British English dictionary, though it includes slang and usage from
>the USA and other places where English is the national language.
>
>         adj. global spherical; world-wide; affecting, or taking into
>         consideration, the whole world or all peoples; comprehensive
>
>Any difference you perceive between the British and American meanings
>of "global" only exist inside your head.

Thank you to make my point which is that it is better not to rise the
matter because it might be a subject for ... controversy.

I just tried to help editing a text, not to be entrapped into a debate,
and least of all in a dispute. Thanks to Pekka for listening so well
and for the point on TTO. It was very interesting. I will keep him posted
on what we may discuss in here on it.

jfc


PS. To be polite I will respond to Jim: his input was genuinely intereting.

Your quote ("all peoples", plural) actually confirms my understanding.
I do not say that to say I am right, but after having carfully looked into
it (I am not an American/English speaker, but I am bit litterary with
some mathematical stubborness). Please, compare with The American
Heritage ("of, relating to, or involving the entire earth"). Seems pretty
identical, if you do not see the mathematical difference between
"entire earth" and "whole world". What counts is not when deifinitions
say the same but when they differ. French will add the notion of
"Integrated". Computing will add the notion of going into something
more complete (a "global variable": when I say the Internet went global
in 84, I use that image).

Anyway, Jim, I am old enough not to care much about agressiveness.
Use the wording you like: centralized/distributed, uni/multilateral,
singular/plural, machine/people,etc. Diectionnary is not important, it only
helps understanding what are the brainware different images.

What are of interest are the two main technical (and much more)
newtork visions and their differences with ohers. And, in here, what
IPv6 may bring to merge them, and how we might poorly use it,
creating us problems rather than successes.

- It is not because you do not understand or agree with something it is
   necessarily stupid. Only good reason to dig into it.
- try my understanding when reviewing controverted network subjects.
   You may discover by your own synthesis/solutions become easier.