Really ? You don't think a good AD should primarily look for factual evidence
(lab, simulation, interop, ..) results produced by others to judge whether
sufficient work was done to proof that the known entry critera are met
(like no congestion cllapse) - instead of trying to judge those solely
by himself/herself ?
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 10:12:43PM +0100, Carsten Bormann wrote:
On Mar 5, 2013, at 18:58, Bob Braden <braden(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu> wrote:
Which is why we learned 30 years ago that building a transport protocol at
the application layer is generally a Bad Idea. Why do the same bad ideas
keep being reinvented?
Because we don't have a good selection of transport protocols at the
transport layer.
I'm chairing one of the WGs with a UDP-based application protocol.
TCP's congestion control, even if we could use TCP, wouldn't do much for us.
Now here is my point:
I need TSV ADs that are strong on the technical side.
A weak TSV AD might be
-- too cautious, listening to all kinds of Cassandras that haven't bothered
to look at the actual protocol, slowing us down unneededly, or
-- too bold, allowing us to deploy a protocol that causes a congestion
collapse that can only be alleviated by physically chiseling nodes out of
walls.
Clearly, I want neither of these to happen.
(Now, we have received pretty good transport input in 2012, but the IESG will
look at this in 2013, and that's where a highly educated decision has to be
made.)
Grüße, Carsten
--
---
Toerless Eckert, eckert(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com
Cisco NSSTG Systems & Technology Architecture
SDN: Let me play with the network, mommy!