[e2e] Open the floodgate

[Cannara]

2nd to that Jon.  Enough decades have passed for TCP improvements to be
allowed without knee-jerk dismissal of ideas, even if they're other than
committee-approved works of 'genius', say like IPv6.  Of course, TCP is just
one part of the flow and the problem these days.

Alex

Jon Crowcroft wrote:
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is
> 
> XTP had a LOT of good ideas but was a kitchen sink protocol
> by the time everyone climbedon the bandwagon
> 
> TCP has a few good ideas - most of which were NOT n the original design - for exasmple despite Postel's wortk on
> correctlness using petri nets, t here were several bugs in the state machine (see ian heavens (RIP) discovery
> relatively late) plus the byte stream nature and lack of optimal packet exchange or nonce/syn cookie meant that
> there were loadds of KNOWN attacks (with known solutons)
> 
> all the stuff vj did on header prediction/40 instricton per packet, and criag and others on rtt estimation, and
> the berkeley/kk ramakrishanna/raj jain/vh congestion control was dne welll after the oritinal work and coudl (and
> WAS ) donr to other protocols too (decnet transport)
> 
> the actual work on BIC (as opposed to the crap written by the reporter) is a delta to TCP much like FAST,
> scaleable, highspeed, all of which the real work cites...
> 
> i wonder if you have ever read vinnecombe's control theoretic work on TCP, or the dccp and sctp work on secure cx
> setup, or the stuff people have actually invented since the boring old farts like thee and me actually had a new
> idea...there are people trying to move right along, despute carping or journalism, and it ill behoves us to diss
> them without reading more.
> stet
>