On 11/28/06, Gerrit Renker <gerrit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Quoting Eddie Kohler: | Gerrit: | | I am able to read code. When I look at the existing Linux code and patches | for CCID 3, I see a lot of corner cases designed to handle the | TFRC_SSTATE_NO_FBACK state. | | That state may not need to exist. CCID 3 always has an RTT estimate, provided | by the request/response exchange. Removing this state would improve the code. | You think the state is required for standards compliance. Well, the | standard's author is trying to tell you differently. This is not about | "experimental" features, this is about interpretations of the core spec. You | seem to think that only you can interpret the core spec correctly; this is not | so. And if an erratum is published, following that erratum will be required | for "standards compliance". | | The "nominal packet size" is not "experimental" either, it is explicitly | allowed by the spec. | | Thanks for your work on DCCP, which I **really do appreciate**. However, I | really do NOT appreciate your tone. I am not going to argue, you are entitled to your own opinion and who am I to say whether it is wrong or right? And if you can walk away from this discussion with material to provide an erratum for future implementers and ideas for improving the specifications, then this discussion has in fact been constructive.
Indeed constructive, even if at times too, humm, "nervous" :)
Good for you - but it does not solve the issues with the Linux implementation, which remains as yet another half-completed attempt.
I guess its more than 60% after last month 8-)
I think it would suit your and our purposes better if instead of debating the latest erratums and how X could also be implemented using method Z (while X is at least working without failure), there were some concerted effort to achieve at least _one_ completed implementation. Otherwise, it takes only 3 more years and then there will be a sad anniversary of 10 years of TFRC/DCCP research without even a single completed implementation.
<bad joke> The ultimate irony is a half completed DCCP implementation on top of IPv6 ;-) </bad joke>
This is was the email below says - sorry if you did not appreciate the tone of it.
Lets get over it :-) Take a look at the state of DaveM's tree today, its completely in sync with mine and has most things merged, except for the packet size and TRFC equation patches, that I thought a day or two would be nice for further discussion. - Arnaldo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dccp" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
