Re: An alternative to TCP (part 1)

[Mark Allman]

> As I am sure you recall, the IETF held a BOF on "TCPng" some years
> ago.  It went over exactly the same ground tilled Mr. Gao.  The
> BOF's conclusion was that any gains would be marginal and would
> not justify the trauma of change.

I am fairly unconvinced in the arguments made by Mr. Gao.  However,
maybe a TCPng is the wrong way to look at things.  A better model,
it seems to me, is the one followed by SCTP.  In other words, let's
build a new transport that has semantics that are different from
TCP.  As long as it is safe (i.e., follows good congestion control),
why should we care how many of these protocols are defined?  After
we ensure the protocols are safe we can just let Darwinism take its
course.

allman


---
Mark Allman -- BBN/NASA GRC -- http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~mallman/