On Sun, 2003-12-14 at 23:34, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
jamal writes:
So the Linux decision was infact a very good one. An award of some form
is in order.
Maybe Microsoft will be inspired to do things the same way: it can
change its implementations in order to break 10% of all sites around the
world, and when anyone complains, it can say that it was forcing those
sites to move to more modern software, and that it really deserves an
award in consequence.
The issue is a standard that defines ECN in the RFC; Linux implemented
that standard to the spec. All MUSTs are met.
Other older devices made assumptions about what the future would be
and hard-coded certain behavior. Its clear that the older devices are
the one that are broken. Now if Linux had done what the older devices
did (like MS did with kerberos) then you would be correct.
I claim that ECN would have been a failure in deployment i.e not as
transparent as it is today if Linux had implemented the workaround.
Thats where the award is deserved.
One could argue that at the end a better network is one with less broken
devices; and that a better interop really means conformance as opposed
to adaptation to broken implementations.
This conflicts with Linux having a broken implementation (and yes, it is
broken, because it is not interoperatively better).
Your definition of broken is a little off. I would think the broken
implementation is the one that misunderstood the definition. "reserved"
as i have been enlightened privately has been clearly defined at IETF
as:
a) Must be set to zero on transmission
b) Should be ignored upon reception.
Some systems dont follow b). I believe those are "broken". Linux does
follow b).
It is true that an implementation would be considered robust if it was
able to recover from interacting with problematic non-conformant devices
i.e those that break b). But robustness does not equate to conformance.
It is also true that some systems may break b) _by design_ for paranoia
reasons.
You make none of the above points.
The main contention it seems is the definition of "reserved".
The main contention seems to be the system with the problem. If it's
Linux, it's not a bug, it's feature. If it's Microsoft, it's not a
feature, it's a bug.
You are working hard to turn this into a Linux vs MS debate?
Heres some help for you: MS sucks! ;-> In case you didnt hear that, here
goes again MS sucks! ;->
Now go and look for your sword and meet me at the fountain by the town
square for a duel for i have dishonored your family. Oh, i forgot to
mention the time, make it at sunset because i have other things i have
to go to after (like work for example).
cheers,
jamal