Re: removing RIP/RIPng (routed/route6d)

Scott:
> I'm never sure whether to respond to sophistry and rhetoric, but why not, 
> let's play:

my intention with this post was not to engage in sophistry, but to
explain (or justify) the reasoning behind my proposal to remove
RIP/RIPng, since you seemed to be asking for more details on that.
i apologise if it came across as unnecessarily rhetorical, but i
often find the easiest way to explain my reasoning behind something is
by example.  perhaps this is a personal flaw :-)

in any case it sounds like you're content with routed being moved to a
port rather than banished entirely.  my assumption in the original mail
was that this would happen anyway (assuming it at least 1 remaining
user) but perhaps i wasn't clear enough about that.