Apology for snarling at Lloyd (was: Re: [e2e] Is a non-TCP solution dead?)

[Spencer Dawkins]

My apologies for being quite a bit surlier in my followup to
Lloyd's note than I intended to be, and especially for diverting
attention from the real point of Lloyd's note, which I agree
with completely.

Spencer

--- Lloyd Wood <l.wood at eim.surrey.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> pray give us your loss-related evaluations of Dina Katabi et
> al's XCP
> (more traditional control theory framework, generalised from
> ECN with
> router state, not TCP-compatible) and S.Low et al's FAST
> (utility function framework, vaguely descended from TCP
> Vegas.)
> 
> If we're going to discuss TCP sucktitude, it would be nice to
> be able
> to relate it to current research.