[e2e] Reacting to corruption based loss

[Greg Skinner]

On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 02:18:15PM -0700, Cannara wrote:
> Sam, the issue isn't that I'm "suggesting that TCP/IP is
> fundamentally flawed as a layer3/4 team and think that a replacement
> of the protocol is in order".  It's that the bigger, elephant-sized
> issue, alluded to by Cerf himself, has been for years that protocol
> development for the Internet stopped short.

It seems to me that there's still quite a bit of Internet protocol
development.  It is not the fault of the developers that these new
and/or improved protocols don't get widespread deployment.

> I'd not feel good about it, if it had been my responsibility to
> continue TCP/IP protocol work, even given its non-competitive
> subsidy.  After all, was there ever a bakeoff with other development
> results?  No.  TCP/IP development stagnated, yet it was subsidized
> around the world by free distribution with almost every OS and box
> being shipped.  Can't beat that marketing.  But, that marketing, as
> we know with uSoft, inevitably leads to mediocrity.

Again, this is not the fault of the developers of new and/or improved
protocols.

> My point is that there's opportunity in all these issues to do
> better.  There's been that opportunity for years.  A bureaucacy
> formed long ago that thwarts addressing it.  It'd be great to see
> folks engage the opportunity and make progress.

Many people are doing this.  The question is beyond the community of
developers and other interested parties, are there enough people who
wish to use these protocols that they can gain widespread deployment?

--gregbo