Lloyd-

> I think it's significant that the ns crowd talk of 'validation' and
> not 'regression'. It's really limited regression tests that's being
> done for limited code coverage, and not in an nxn feature matrix,
> either. You'd have to validate against something else, ano previous
> versions of ns, to really be validation.

Nobody said it was perfect.  But, to assert that there is nothing done
in this area of validation or regression or quality control or whatever
you want to call it is just wrong, IMHO.  That is all I was trying to
say.

Could it be better?  Always.  See my previous note.

> Commercial software shrinkwrap EULA licenses disclaim just as much as
> the ns disclaimer below, and more. Does that make ns comparable iwth
> commercial software?

I agree with the high order bit of the statement on the ns page.  If
your assertion in the above is that no matter what tool a researcher
uses (commercial, open source, custom) the same words should apply then
I would happily agree with such an assertion.  Researchers are
responsible for ensuring that their experiments are sound.  Doesn't
matter if you're using opnet or ns2 or two Solaris boxes and a Cisco
router or a pencil and paper.

allman