Trying to dismiss a technical problem with a
facile analogy that is not relevant is not a way
to pursuade.
Logically, then, calling the analogy "stupid," or saying "we looked at it
and decided it wouldn't work," is even less so.
In any case, I have no objective to persuade. I'm sure that all the
decisions have been made. I'm confident that the passage of time will
provide all the persuasion needed.
Roadways to not change topology dozens of times
per second.
It depends on the time scale of observation.
I could go on, but what is the point?
I agree.
If you want to participate on a mailing list devoted
to engineering of Internet protocols please don't
expect to be listened to seriously unless you are
prepared to conduct the discussion on a technical
level.
There are certainly some people who probably should not listen to me, as it
will just raise their blood pressure. However, there are also others who
are willing to listen to anyone, just as I am. Those in the former category
can censor at their receiving end, so there is no reason to censor at the
sending end, particularly since it would be to the detriment of people in
the latter category.
Speaking of technical levels, what level does it require to change the
Reply-To address on a mailing list so that replies go to the group by
default, instead of to the sender of whatever message elicits a reply?