[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ih] why did CC happen at all?

Am 03.09.2014 um 23:02 schrieb Andrew G. Malis:
> Detlef,
> I disagree with "Defective hardware is not a scientific problem but
> something for the waste basket." Well, it may not be a scientific
> problem, but it certainly is an engineering problem.


The problem is perhaps the discussion itself.

Including my typo, I wanted to write "why did congestion happen at all?"
and pressed the enter key to early.

What I want to discuss is congestion and congestion control -
intentionally with a clean slate approach in mind.
For this purpose, you necessarily need assumptions. The question is:
Which assumptions are reasonable and decent? And which aren't?

When we forget the term "history" at the moment, the assumption "intact
interface" is much more reasonable than much other assumptions we make.

Particularly for this very discussion, I think it is reasonable to
assume working hardware.

However, particularly after Paul Vixie's rant, I would appreciate a
pointer to a more suitable venue for this discussion. I'm not willing to
discuss scientific questions in that manner.

And yes, it MUST be possible to put in question approaches which are
broadly used, we cannot learn without asking questions.

But Paul's kind of yelling is simply not acceptable for me. Particularly
as he did not bring arguments but very personal invectives. (And did not
really read what I wrote, I never proposed a "core based" congestion
control scheme, what is "core based"?  So when someone think, a
statement or a claim of mine were wrong, I would appreciated at least
being quoted correctly.)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20140903/a7a8dd82/attachment.html>