|
> Lloyd, > on something you claim to be fundamentally broken? > Wouldn't you make more productive use of that time > working on a design for a Perpetual Motion Machine?
Hi Eric,
that's a really interesting analogy, and an interesting question.
I'd argue that, in ignoring the ramifications of the end-to-end principle, the effects of errors, and needing synchronized clocks, that the Bundle Protocol fundamentally ignores entropy. As such, the Bundle Protocol IS designed as a perpetual motion machine, and the only reason it works is that other things are handling that pesky entropy for it - adjusting clocks, catching errors, and the like. Rather like a perpetual motion machine getting some helpful inputs of energy to stay "perpetual" and seemingly violate the second law of thermodynamics, neglecting entropy. (Hello, Steorn's Orbo and its helpful battery.)
And as someone with a basic grasp of physics, it is my responsibility -- nay, my duty -- to point out that perpetual motion machines don't work very well in reality. Which has entropy.
And DTN scenarios have _lots_ of entropy, unlike the pristine computer science environments the protocol was conceived in.
So, the Bundle Protocol IS the design for the perpetual motion machine that I keep discussing. We have come full circle, rather like said machine is supposed to do.
Note that I discuss the protocol machine, rather than the people behind it. The rest of your email is rather ad hominem. I can't claim to be the smartest guy in the room, not least because I don't get invited into those meeting rooms these days. (I left that 2001 meeting early, and stayed distant.)
You complain, however, that I'm just not charming enough to the Perpetual Motion Squad and the pictures of that machine in their wallets while explaining basic physics so that they can build a slightly less broken perpetual motion machine, and that we've given up on tinkering with the design of their perpetual motion machine for them. That's a fair call. Discussion of basic reliability becoming toxic was not entirely my doing - again, a fair call. I don't believe error detection is
was charming enough in laying out our intent, I thought. But then the perpetual motion analogy and recognition of ultimate futility hadn't yet occurred to us.
And that nicely summarises my unease with the Bundle Protocol technically (I've covered procedural unease in earlier emails), and why I believe a standards-track effort for it is unwarranted.
Thanks for the perpetual insight.
Lloyd Wood
From: Eric Travis <eric.dot.travis@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, 23 July 2014 6:20 PM To: Wood L Dr (Electronic Eng) Cc: iesg@xxxxxxxx; iab@xxxxxxx; dtn-interest@xxxxxxxx; dtn@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [dtn-interest] DTNWG proposal is a terribly bad idea Lloyd,
Why do you continue to expend so much time and effort on something you claim to be fundamentally broken? Wouldn't you make more productive use of that time working on a design for a Perpetual Motion Machine?
While you might be comfortable on the receiving end of your contributions, clearly most aren't. Always assume your audience is thinner skinned than yourself. If you were kind enough to return a lost wallet, but insisted on including a detailed, brutally
honest critique of the family photos inside - you shouldn't be surprised when you fail to receive a Thank You or even an acknowledgement for your effort.
Based on the historical impacts, I'd have to say that Vint's 2008 suggestion to you was indeed a good one. Whether or not the current suggestion that you not participate in a DTNWG is appropriate depends entirely on you...
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:21 PM, <l.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
|