[e2e] Is a non-TCP solution dead?

[Cannara]

Dave, your comments are understandable.  As I mentioned separately, the
archives for this list should have a great deal of discussion about alternate
transport specs and behaviors.  I suggested a very small proportion of those. 
The fact we're faced with today is simply that whatever TCP does, or will do,
it is not the definer of network traffic and likely will never be.  My
responses are simply aimed at encouraging some fresh approaches, rather than
bureaucratic backing & filling, like "TCP friendliness".

Alex

Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
> Cannara,
> 
> Wednesday, April 2, 2003, 10:02:02 AM, you wrote:
> C> Cynical Bob?
> 
> Please review the definition of cynicism.  You will discover that it has
> nothing to do with Bob's note about your condemning tone and constantly
> plaintive postings.
> 
> You might also want to consider that he is list moderator and that
> postings from his suggesting changes in one's posting style are worth
> taking seriously.
> 
> As to the purported technical content of your postings:
> 
> Let's take it as a given that TCP should have been done differently.
> 
> We can ignore that it was intentionally designed on the assumption that
> interesting characteristics of specific links along a path would be
> taken care of by... the link protocol! (I know it is silly to have local
> problems handled by local mechanisms, but that is nonetheless what was
> in the heads of those utterly silly engineers, back then.)
> 
> So let's take all that as a given.
> 
> We all will be delighted to see your alternative specification -- and I
> did not say "proposal" because it is the details that matter.  We will
> even be impressed to see documentation of its superior behaviors, based
> on objective tests, rather than your sole, expert opinion.
> 
> Until then, perhaps you could find a different note?  The one you have
> been plucking has become a water drop torture.
> 
> d/
> 
> ps. I really enjoyed your 'those who ignore history' implication.
> Perhaps you missed the minor fact that Bob is one of those people who
> invented that bit of history? And although the years are certain to have
> taken their toll on him, there is no indication that he has become
> memory-impaired. By contrast, we do seem to be encountering other folk
> who *are* memory-impaired by virtue of no one bothering to stuff
> important memories into them, through such mundane processes as careful
> reading and careful consideration. So they end up knowing far too much
> detail and nowhere near enough concept. They spend their time
> criticizing history with complete confidence, but ignorant of key ideas
> and concerns that were the underpinnings to the decisions made way back
> then.
> 
> --
>  Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
>  Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>