Re: RFC 6921 on Design Considerations for Faster-Than-Light (FTL) Communication
On 05/04/2013 18:12, Wes Beebee (wbeebee) wrote: Or use the FTL to predict the company stock price so that you get rich without implementing anything. That's terrible for the IETF. It completely nullifies the NomCom random selection process; all the suggestions in RFC 3797 seem to be blown away by this. Brian
Re: RFC 6921 on Design Considerations for Faster-Than-Light (FTL) Communication
On Apr 6, 2013, at 3:21 AM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: That's terrible for the IETF. It completely nullifies the NomCom random selection process; all the suggestions in RFC 3797 seem to be blown away by this. This seems like exactly the sort of problem that Jari's cross-area draft is intended to address.
Re: RFC 6921 on Design Considerations for Faster-Than-Light (FTL) Communication
Bob, thinking about this and assuming that the FTL Communication are deployed in a not too far distant future, wouldn't we have started to receive packets that was sent in the future already now? /Loa On 2013-04-02 18:19, Bob Hinden wrote: AB, On Apr 1, 2013, at 5:45 PM, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote: RFC6921It is well known that as we approach the speed of light, time slows down. AB I know that time slows for something when it is in speed of light, but communication is not something moving. If the packet is in speed of light we may reduce the comm-delay but never less than zero. The communication times don't change if at least one communicator is not moving in light speed. My comment is that I think this RFC is not logical, and I don't understand its recommendations. There is no way that a packet can be received before send, packet-time never changes communicators-time while the positions of both Tx and Rx are semi-fixed (change is relative to communicators' times not their signal). I think the communication-times may change when the communicators are at/above speed of light not the signal/packet. Is my physics correct? Only time will tell. Bob -- Loa Anderssonemail: l...@mail01.huawei.com Senior MPLS Expert l...@pi.nu Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64
Re: RFC 6921 on Design Considerations for Faster-Than-Light (FTL) Communication
On 5 Apr 2013 09:47, Loa Andersson l...@pi.nu wrote: Bob, thinking about this and assuming that the FTL Communication are deployed in a not too far distant future, wouldn't we have started to receive packets that was sent in the future already now? Indeed, and this tells us that publication of this was important, since we'll need to be in a position to handle the issues that will occur much sooner than deployment, and for that matter development of the technology.
Re: RFC 6921 on Design Considerations for Faster-Than-Light (FTL) Communication
On 05/04/2013 10:03, Dave Cridland wrote: On 5 Apr 2013 09:47, Loa Andersson l...@pi.nu wrote: Bob, thinking about this and assuming that the FTL Communication are deployed in a not too far distant future, wouldn't we have started to receive packets that was sent in the future already now? Indeed, and this tells us that publication of this was important, since we'll need to be in a position to handle the issues that will occur much sooner than deployment, and for that matter development of the technology. If the announcement of the RFC had arrived on March 31st, that would have demonstrated running code.
RE: RFC 6921 on Design Considerations for Faster-Than-Light (FTL) Communication
So instead of asking the community do you have an intention to implement and deploy? we should ask have you already been going to have implemented and deployed yet? thinking about this and assuming that the FTL Communication are deployed in a not too far distant future, wouldn't we have started to receive packets that was sent in the future already now? Indeed, and this tells us that publication of this was important, since we'll need to be in a position to handle the issues that will occur much sooner than deployment, and for that matter development of the technology.
Re: RFC 6921 on Design Considerations for Faster-Than-Light (FTL) Communication
On 2013-04-05 11:11, Brian E Carpenter wrote: On 05/04/2013 10:03, Dave Cridland wrote: On 5 Apr 2013 09:47, Loa Andersson l...@pi.nu wrote: Bob, thinking about this and assuming that the FTL Communication are deployed in a not too far distant future, wouldn't we have started to receive packets that was sent in the future already now? Indeed, and this tells us that publication of this was important, since we'll need to be in a position to handle the issues that will occur much sooner than deployment, and for that matter development of the technology. If the announcement of the RFC had arrived on March 31st, that would have demonstrated running code. Are you sure that this was not published April 1, 2014 or even 2015?? /Loa -- Loa Anderssonemail: l...@mail01.huawei.com Senior MPLS Expert l...@pi.nu Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64
Re: RFC 6921 on Design Considerations for Faster-Than-Light (FTL) Communication
Loa == Loa Andersson l...@pi.nu writes: Loa thinking about this and assuming that the FTL Communication are deployed Loa in a not too far distant future, wouldn't we have started to receive Loa packets that was sent in the future already now? I for one, have always found these Crocker brothers suspicious: always seem to have been at the key points in Internet future history. I think that they are in fact a single person. One is going forward in time, and the other one backwards. (Which is which, is still open to debate) So I claim that we will have been receiving packets from the future for some time now. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect [ ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails[ pgpgA4xVYS2Zk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFC 6921 on Design Considerations for Faster-Than-Light (FTL) Communication
I too have always found at least one of the Crocker brothers {suspicious,
smart, funny, irrelevant, prescient, handsome, annoying, etc.}. I've never been
able to tell which is which :)
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 5, 2013, at 9:58 PM, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote:
Loa == Loa Andersson l...@pi.nu writes:
Loa thinking about this and assuming that the FTL Communication are
deployed
Loa in a not too far distant future, wouldn't we have started to receive
Loa packets that was sent in the future already now?
I for one, have always found these Crocker brothers suspicious: always
seem to have been at the key points in Internet future history.
I think that they are in fact a single person.
One is going forward in time, and the other one backwards.
(Which is which, is still open to debate)
So I claim that we will have been receiving packets from the future for
some time now.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks
[
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect
[
] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/| ruby on rails
[
Re: RFC 6921 on Design Considerations for Faster-Than-Light (FTL) Communication
--On Friday, April 05, 2013 10:03 +0100 Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote: ... Indeed, and this tells us that publication of this was important, since we'll need to be in a position to handle the issues that will occur much sooner than deployment, and for that matter development of the technology. ... Don't we already have demonstrations of this in the number of systems that are deployed before being developed? john
Re: RFC 6921 on Design Considerations for Faster-Than-Light (FTL) Communication
On 4/5/2013 9:09 AM, Steve Crocker wrote:
I too have always found at least one of the Crocker brothers {suspicious,
smart, funny, irrelevant, prescient, handsome, annoying, etc.}. I've never been
able to tell which is which :)
There are days when I'm really glad to be part of this community ...
Spencer
Re: RFC 6921 on Design Considerations for Faster-Than-Light (FTL) Communication
On Apr 5, 2013, at 10:29 AM, Spencer Dawkins spen...@wonderhamster.org wrote: There are days when I'm really glad to be part of this community ... Yes, but the question is, is this such a day? :)
Re: RFC 6921 on Design Considerations for Faster-Than-Light (FTL) Communication
Loa, On Apr 5, 2013, at 1:47 AM, Loa Andersson l...@pi.nu wrote: Bob, thinking about this and assuming that the FTL Communication are deployed in a not too far distant future, wouldn't we have started to receive packets that was sent in the future already now? See Section 5. It may be already be happening... Bob
Re: RFC 6921 on Design Considerations for Faster-Than-Light (FTL) Communication
Or use the FTL to predict the company stock price so that you get rich without implementing anything. - Wes On 4/5/13 5:12 AM, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote: So instead of asking the community do you have an intention to implement and deploy? we should ask have you already been going to have implemented and deployed yet? thinking about this and assuming that the FTL Communication are deployed in a not too far distant future, wouldn't we have started to receive packets that was sent in the future already now? Indeed, and this tells us that publication of this was important, since we'll need to be in a position to handle the issues that will occur much sooner than deployment, and for that matter development of the technology.
Re: RFC 6921 on Design Considerations for Faster-Than-Light (FTL) Communication
On 4/5/2013 6:58 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
Loa == Loa Andersson l...@pi.nu writes:
thinking about this and assuming that the FTL Communication are
deployed Loa in a not too far distant future, wouldn't we have
started to receive Loapackets that was sent in the future already
now?
I for one, have always found these Crocker brothers suspicious:
wtf? Is this some sort of demonstration that the IETF has its own
variation of Godwin's Law at work?
I think that they are in fact a single person.
On 4/5/2013 7:09 AM, Steve Crocker wrote: I too have always found at
least one of the Crocker brothers {suspicious, smart, funny,
irrelevant, prescient, handsome, annoying, etc.}. I've never been
able to tell which is which :)
I usually can.
But given the context, I'm reminded of a brief exchange I had many years
ago with Steve:
I'd just read Azimov's The Last Question[*] which was about
Azimov's ultimate computer, Multivac, taking eons to consider the
question can entropy be reversed? The story is a series of snapshots,
with that generation's version of Multivac always concluding that it
doesn't yet have enough information but it will continue to consider
this interesting question. At the end, with humanity long gone and it's
own existence continuing only for considering the question it uses its
last metaphysical ounce of energy, to say/think/whatever: Let there be
light!
Steve said he didn't like that ending. Instead, he said, he'd have
had the computer say/think/whatever: No.
d/
[*] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Question
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
Re: RFC 6921 on Design Considerations for Faster-Than-Light (FTL) Communication
Actually, getting rich without implementing anything seems to happen quite often enough these days - it's called acquisition. On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Wes Beebee (wbeebee) wbee...@cisco.comwrote: Or use the FTL to predict the company stock price so that you get rich without implementing anything. - Wes On 4/5/13 5:12 AM, Adrian Farrel adr...@olddog.co.uk wrote: So instead of asking the community do you have an intention to implement and deploy? we should ask have you already been going to have implemented and deployed yet? thinking about this and assuming that the FTL Communication are deployed in a not too far distant future, wouldn't we have started to receive packets that was sent in the future already now? Indeed, and this tells us that publication of this was important, since we'll need to be in a position to handle the issues that will occur much sooner than deployment, and for that matter development of the technology.
Re: RFC 6921 on Design Considerations for Faster-Than-Light (FTL) Communication
At 03:59 PM 4/5/2013, Dave Cridland wrote: Actually, getting rich without implementing anything seems to happen quite often enough these days - it's called acquisition. or be a Kardashian On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Wes Beebee (wbeebee) mailto:wbee...@cisco.comwbee...@cisco.com wrote: Or use the FTL to predict the company stock price so that you get rich without implementing anything. - Wes On 4/5/13 5:12 AM, Adrian Farrel mailto:adr...@olddog.co.ukadr...@olddog.co.uk wrote: So instead of asking the community do you have an intention to implement and deploy? we should ask have you already been going to have implemented and deployed yet? thinking about this and assuming that the FTL Communication are deployed in a not too far distant future, wouldn't we have started to receive packets that was sent in the future already now? Indeed, and this tells us that publication of this was important, since we'll need to be in a position to handle the issues that will occur much sooner than deployment, and for that matter development of the technology.
RE: RFC 6921 on Design Considerations for Faster-Than-Light (FTL) Communication
Kids! Remember, if we're not bright enough to do physics, we can always do engineering, the slow younger brother of physics! But if engineering is too difficult, there's always computer science, where terms like bandwidth mean what we want them to mean. And if even that's too hard, there's always the arts-and-crafts knitted-my-own-shawl-or-at-least-drew-an-okay-pattern-for-it trade of 'Internet Engineering', and writing RFCs. And we can achieve that RFC goal easily by getting in the back door with an April 1 RFC! Every April 1 there's a reminder and inspiration to us all! Lloyd Wood http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/ Time's arrow is written gt;
Re: RFC 6921 on Design Considerations for Faster-Than-Light (FTL) Communication
On Apr 2, 2013, at 6:41 AM, l.w...@surrey.ac.uk wrote: Kids! Remember, if we're not bright enough to do physics, we can always do engineering, the slow younger brother of physics! Is your point that if we do an engineering solution, that will slow things down enough that we won't have packet ordering problems?
Re: RFC 6921 on Design Considerations for Faster-Than-Light (FTL) Communication
AB, On Apr 1, 2013, at 5:45 PM, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote: RFC6921It is well known that as we approach the speed of light, time slows down. AB I know that time slows for something when it is in speed of light, but communication is not something moving. If the packet is in speed of light we may reduce the comm-delay but never less than zero. The communication times don't change if at least one communicator is not moving in light speed. My comment is that I think this RFC is not logical, and I don't understand its recommendations. There is no way that a packet can be received before send, packet-time never changes communicators-time while the positions of both Tx and Rx are semi-fixed (change is relative to communicators' times not their signal). I think the communication-times may change when the communicators are at/above speed of light not the signal/packet. Is my physics correct? Only time will tell. Bob
Re: RFC 6921 on Design Considerations for Faster-Than-Light (FTL) Communication
RFC6921It is well known that as we approach the speed of light, time slows down. AB I know that time slows for something when it is in speed of light, but communication is not something moving. If the packet is in speed of light we may reduce the comm-delay but never less than zero. The communication times don't change if at least one communicator is not moving in light speed. My comment is that I think this RFC is not logical, and I don't understand its recommendations. There is no way that a packet can be received before send, packet-time never changes communicators-time while the positions of both Tx and Rx are semi-fixed (change is relative to communicators' times not their signal). I think the communication-times may change when the communicators are at/above speed of light not the signal/packet. Is my physics correct? AB On 4/1/13, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 6921 Title: Design Considerations for Faster-Than-Light (FTL) Communication Author: R. Hinden Status: Informational Stream: Independent Date: 1 April 2013 Mailbox:bob.hin...@gmail.com Pages: 7 Characters: 15100 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag:draft-hinden-FTL-design-considerations-00.txt URL:http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6921.txt We are approaching the time when we will be able to communicate faster than the speed of light. It is well known that as we approach the speed of light, time slows down. Logically, it is reasonable to assume that as we go faster than the speed of light, time will reverse. The major consequence of this for Internet protocols is that packets will arrive before they are sent. This will have a major impact on the way we design Internet protocols. This paper outlines some of the issues and suggests some directions for additional analysis of these issues. INFORMATIONAL: This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC
Re: RFC 6921 on Design Considerations for Faster-Than-Light (FTL) Communication
Delete The communication times don't change if at least one communicator is not moving in light speed. AB I meant the communication times MAY change if at least one communicator is moving in light speed. On 4/2/13, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote: RFC6921It is well known that as we approach the speed of light, time slows down. AB I know that time slows for something when it is in speed of light, but communication is not something moving. If the packet is in speed of light we may reduce the comm-delay but never less than zero. The communication times don't change if at least one communicator is not moving in light speed. My comment is that I think this RFC is not logical, and I don't understand its recommendations. There is no way that a packet can be received before send, packet-time never changes communicators-time while the positions of both Tx and Rx are semi-fixed (change is relative to communicators' times not their signal). I think the communication-times may change when the communicators are at/above speed of light not the signal/packet. Is my physics correct? AB On 4/1/13, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote: A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 6921 Title: Design Considerations for Faster-Than-Light (FTL) Communication Author: R. Hinden Status: Informational Stream: Independent Date: 1 April 2013 Mailbox:bob.hin...@gmail.com Pages: 7 Characters: 15100 Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso: None I-D Tag:draft-hinden-FTL-design-considerations-00.txt URL:http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6921.txt We are approaching the time when we will be able to communicate faster than the speed of light. It is well known that as we approach the speed of light, time slows down. Logically, it is reasonable to assume that as we go faster than the speed of light, time will reverse. The major consequence of this for Internet protocols is that packets will arrive before they are sent. This will have a major impact on the way we design Internet protocols. This paper outlines some of the issues and suggests some directions for additional analysis of these issues. INFORMATIONAL: This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists. To subscribe or unsubscribe, see http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist For searching the RFC series, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcsearch.html. For downloading RFCs, see http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html. Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org. Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are for unlimited distribution. The RFC Editor Team Association Management Solutions, LLC
Re: RFC 6921 on Design Considerations for Faster-Than-Light (FTL) Communication
The words in this message are to be interpreted as described in RFC 6919. Here are some considerations for Faster-Than-Light Communication (see RFC 6921). * Bring value when you send a message. Do not seek value. Value-seeking questions such as, What are you doing tonight? make people sound too needy and also fail to inspire any emotion in the person whom they are communicating with. * Avoid sending too many messages. This is meant to keep someone who is interested in a person from sounding too desperate or like they have no reason to live other than to send messages. * Keep it simple, stupid. The whole point of communicating with a person is to make the person get the point without being long-winded, which can be boring. Regards, -sm
