[e2e] Are we doing sliding window in the Internet?
ian.mcdonald at jandi.co.nz
Thu Jan 3 15:50:33 PST 2008
On Jan 4, 2008 12:05 PM, Joe Touch <touch at isi.edu> wrote:
> > I think, Lloyd Wood made the point precisely:
> > "Academics are rewarded by writing papers. They are not rewarded by
> > staying current with the current codebase of the linux kernel/ns."
> Nor are they rewarded for paying the penalty of the goofiness of the
> Linux community in deploying experimental protocols as default. This has
> come up at a number of IETF meetings, in particular, regarding CUBIC
> which is currently the default in Linux despite being an Internet Draft
> intended as experimental in the IETF.
> Academics like stability, and they like things that follow standards.
I think academics do themselves a dis-service when they hide behind
their simulators and don't go out and try and use software. It's often
interesting to compare what happens in the simulator to the "real
world". What use is the research without applying it?
There is a real shortage of academics in the Linux community (and
probably the BSD community too) - when I was involved I only saw two
or three being active out of many 100s/1000s of network researchers
there must be. I've personally been involved in the debates in the
Linux community around BIC, Cubic, ABC, RTO minimums etc and have been
able to influence some change. Where academics have gotten involved
they have usually (but not always) been listened to.
I know some academics have shied away from joining in the debates
because they get "flamed". I'd say two things about this - it is
getting less flamey and it's also less harsh than many peer reviews
I've had on my papers!
If you want to make a difference here, get involved.
More information about the end2end-interest