Re: [lisp] LISP EID Block Size

jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Thu, 31 October 2013 15:50 UTC

Return-Path: <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 682FB11E8167 for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 08:50:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.515
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.515 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.084, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N2XAbczrEVYI for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 08:50:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.lcs.mit.edu (mercury.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.122]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22AC511E812D for <lisp@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 08:50:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix, from userid 11178) id 9BE0F18C16A; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 11:50:19 -0400 (EDT)
To: lisp@ietf.org
Message-Id: <20131031155019.9BE0F18C16A@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 11:50:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)
Cc: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP EID Block Size
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp>
List-Post: <mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:50:30 -0000

    > From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>

    > If it is difficult to explain what the experiment is about then I
    > understand that people are afraid it might be a bad idea.

You seem to be conflating "quality of writing" with "quality of idea". That's
an incorrect linkage.

Have you ever tried to read Newton's "Principia"? To me, it's a nightmare to
read (admittedly, in part because he didn't want to reveal the incremental
calculus). Needless to say, the ideas in it are anything but.

Anyway, these documents were well enough written for me to understand what
the point was.

	Noel