(usagi-users 00334) Re: USAGI IPv6 patches

["Venning, Roger" <Roger.Venning@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

all,

My humble apologies to all on the list, most specifically Alexey,

I think a retraction is in order, or perhaps more correctly,
a little more context. I didn't meant send this to the list, but thought
that I had sent to a work colleague. I was speaking to him
yesterday about Alexey (guru) Kuznetsov & the Linux TCP/IP stack, as
he has been working closely on some Netfilter stuff, and was
talking about 'Rusty' Russel. I made mention that due to
Alexey being Russian(?), his English is quirky. So when I
was reading this in the morning, I _thought_ I had forwarded
it on to him. (I knew I should have gotten coffee when I came
in this morning).

Alexey: my humble apologies, after all, I cannot speak any other
language than English, so your language skills are far ahead of mine
(without even considering coding ability :-) ). Retrospectively
considering my own message shows that my own grammar in email messages
is quite lax.

Roger.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Venning		\ <roger.venning@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Technologist	     	 \ 
Telstra Research Labs	  \  A new .sig for a new Millenium...
Phone: +61 3 9253 6295     \


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Venning, Roger [mailto:Roger.Venning@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 March 2001 9:20 AM
> To: 'usagi-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
> Subject: (usagi-users 00333) Re: USAGI IPv6 patches
> 
> 
> 
> classic Alexey Kuznetsov... the guy's English just doesn't
> quite parse right...
> 
> Roger.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Roger Venning		\ <roger.venning@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Technologist	     	 \ 
> Telstra Research Labs	  \  A new .sig for a new Millenium...
> Phone: +61 3 9253 6295     \
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, 21 March 2001 7:39 AM
> > To: horape@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; usagi-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > davem@xxxxxxxxxx; bam@xxxxxxxxxx; pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx;
> > debian-ipv6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: (usagi-users 00331) Re: USAGI IPv6 patches
> > 
> > 
> > Hello!
> > 
> > > I -as an application programmer- should not know if i'm 
> using IPv4,
> > > IPv6, IPv9, IPX++++, CLNP or DECnet Phase X.
> > 
> > Listen, you are right _of_ _course_. I am not going to argue
> > to the statement which I advocated for six years (or more? 
> > since early 2.1)
> > 8)8)
> > 
> > But you/me/itojun have to assure people writing api RFC for 
> beginning.
> > 
> > 
> > > Normal way to code AF independent servers is: (taken from itojun's
> > > http://www.kame.net/newsletter/19980604/)
> > 
> > Agreed.
> > 
> > But as soon as world is still not a full paradise, you have 
> > to do protocol
> > specific tunings. Sorry. Probably, you could parse 6 year old 
> > maillists, when
> > it was still possible to drop this bogus transition mechanism.
> > I was alone that time and shredded to pieces, even R.Stevens 
> > participated
> > in the execution. 8)8)
> > 
> > 
> > > Everywhere
> > 
> > Everywhere is openbsd.
> > 
> > NT does this only because their core does not allow to share ports
> > in RFC compliant way.
> > 
> > All the rest are buggy and we are not allowed to introduce bugs
> > deliberately.
> > 
> > 
> > > opinion) I prefer that buggy behaviour to the right one
> > 
> > Pardon, this is the place where we diverge crucially.
> > 
> > 
> > > code. And I prefer the non RFC complaint, non buggy 
> > openbsd/MS behaviour
> > > to the buggy one.
> > 
> > I am too.
> > 
> > But we have to follow directives of RFCs yet. We are not 
> > insurgents. 8)
> > And you, pretending to be application programmer, have no choice
> > but following them too, just not to look like an insurgent.
> > 
> > Alexey
> > 
>