Really ? You don't think a good AD should primarily look for factual evidence (lab, simulation, interop, ..) results produced by others to judge whether sufficient work was done to proof that the known entry critera are met (like no congestion cllapse) - instead of trying to judge those solely by himself/herself ? On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 10:12:43PM +0100, Carsten Bormann wrote: > On Mar 5, 2013, at 18:58, Bob Braden <braden@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Which is why we learned 30 years ago that building a transport protocol at the application layer is generally a Bad Idea. Why do the same bad ideas keep being reinvented? > > Because we don't have a good selection of transport protocols at the transport layer. > > I'm chairing one of the WGs with a UDP-based application protocol. > TCP's congestion control, even if we could use TCP, wouldn't do much for us. > > Now here is my point: > I need TSV ADs that are strong on the technical side. > A weak TSV AD might be > -- too cautious, listening to all kinds of Cassandras that haven't bothered to look at the actual protocol, slowing us down unneededly, or > -- too bold, allowing us to deploy a protocol that causes a congestion collapse that can only be alleviated by physically chiseling nodes out of walls. > > Clearly, I want neither of these to happen. > (Now, we have received pretty good transport input in 2012, but the IESG will look at this in 2013, and that's where a highly educated decision has to be made.) > > Grüße, Carsten > -- --- Toerless Eckert, eckert@xxxxxxxxx Cisco NSSTG Systems & Technology Architecture SDN: Let me play with the network, mommy!