[e2e] Reacting to corruption based loss

[Cannara]

Having already read your msg that follows this one Jon, are controlled
substances doing the talking here?  
:]

Alex

Jon Crowcroft wrote:
> 
> actually, we have 2 pieces of work that makke this entirely reasonable
> 
> 1. my colleagues have a paper at SIGCOMM coming up about using higher order logic
> to prove TCP correct (including different implementations _and_ the socket layer
> 
> 2. one of our PhD students has written an SSHd and other non trivial protocols in
> ocaml, and thus can avail himself of various model checkers and automatic proof systems
> and (as it happens) his code has acceptable performance
> 
> the decrying of good computer science methodlogy because it might be too slow or not able to cope with
> "real world" scale systems is simply OUT OF DATE.
> 
> In missive <42A721C3.D59F601D at attglobal.net>, Cannara typed:
> 
>  >>It seems supercilliousness is the real solution, eh Reed?
>  >>:]
>  >>
>  >>Alex
>  >>
>  >>"David P. Reed" wrote:
>  >>>
>  >>> I really think we missed the boat by not just proving all network
>  >>> components correct.   Errors are really unacceptable, given modern
>  >>> mathematical proof techniques.
>  >>>
>  >>> Since Cannara believes that all erroneous packets can be reliably
>  >>> detected and signaled on the control plane, we are nearly there.   Just
>  >>> put a theorem prover in each router, prove that the packet will be
>  >>> delivered, and you don't even have to put it on the output queue!
>  >>>
>  >>> A bonus question:  if you have two cesium clocks on the ends of a link,
>  >>> they will tick simultaneously, so you should be able to send data
>  >>> without any risk of skew, right?   And if you reduce the messages to
>  >>> single photons, you should NEVER have any errors, because photons are
>  >>> irreducible.   So if we pursue reductionism to its limit, there should
>  >>> be no errors in our system at all.   It's all "Internet Hooey" - the
>  >>> idea that congestion can't be prevented and corruption can't be detected
>  >>> are just foolish notions that SONET would never have to deal with.
>  >>> Cannara is right, the Internet is a completely idiotic idea, and the
>  >>> North American Numbering Plan was all we ever needed.
>  >>>
>  >>> :-)
>  >>
> 
>  cheers
> 
>    jon