On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 22:19:49 +0100
"Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony(_at_)atkielski(_dot_)com> wrote:
John Kristoff writes:
Those are pretty bold statements.
Well, when something pops up in software I use that adds functionality
that I never wanted and breaks things that used to work, bold statements
are in order. If Microsoft had done this, someone would be calling for
a Constitutional amendment to forbid it.
I think you might be missing the point. ECN only breaks when used with previous
*bad* implementations of the relevant RFCs.
At a guess, I find, that it is only 1% or less of web sites that I visit that I
have trouble with ECN. That indicates that the other 99% of web sites firewalls
got it right. Following your logic, the 99% should be penelised for the
mistakes of the 1%.
In the long term, accommodating developer naivety, rather than penalising it,
can only lead everybody down a dead end path. At the end of that path, no
improvements can ever be made, because everthing is so fragile, and completely
depends on assumptions or existing behaviours, rather than documented
standards. Improvement stops, at which point everybody suffers.