From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-21-ewr.dyndns.com (mxout-086-ewr.mailhop.org [216.146.33.86]) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA9EB2E02E9 for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2011 05:37:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from scan-21-ewr.mailhop.org (scan-21-ewr.local [10.0.141.243]) by mail-21-ewr.dyndns.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AF993139 for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2011 13:37:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 () X-Mail-Handler: MailHop by DynDNS X-Originating-IP: 71.162.243.5 Received: from snark.thyrsus.com (static-71-162-243-5.phlapa.fios.verizon.net [71.162.243.5]) by mail-21-ewr.dyndns.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C66D1658 for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2011 13:37:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (Postfix, from userid 23) id 235D220C1BE; Sun, 6 Feb 2011 08:37:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 08:37:13 -0500 From: Eric Raymond To: Dave =?iso-8859-1?Q?T=E4ht?= Message-ID: <20110206133713.GA1835@thyrsus.com> References: <20110205132305.GA29396@thyrsus.com> <87r5bmiiw2.fsf@cruithne.co.teklibre.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <87r5bmiiw2.fsf@cruithne.co.teklibre.org> Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Cc: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Bloat] First draft of complete "Bufferbloat And You" enclosed. X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 13:37:23 -0000 Dave Täht : > The only paragraph that stood out as a cut target was the one on NN. > A sentence, a passing reference, would suffice. NN, like sex, tends to > jolt a limbic system in the wrong direction from rationality. Sorry, which one is that? I want to be sure we're talking about the same thing, as I'm not currently using the phrase "network neutrality" anywhere. > Aside from that I agree that the last section needs to be slightly more, > well, bleak. There is plenty of work left to do. A lot of it is tedious. > A lot of is simple. Some of it requires theoretical breakthroughs. Specify, please. Some such specification needs to be part of our narrative overview, even if it doesn't stay in the main overview document. > The fourth item simply isn't true (enough). Work is being done. (Lots) > More people working on the problems identified so far would be great. "Fourth item"? You mean the assertion that it's all software? If tht's it, what sorts of hardware need to change? I was counting router firmware as software because it can be upgraded; is that wrong? > A goal for me (at least) for these projects is to see typical Internet > latencies move from seconds - as measured in the US - worse elsewhere - > drop closer to the speed of light in cable - ms - two orders of > magnitude improvement. It will be a better internet experience for > everyone. Should this goal be in the overview? > Also I note the "less hard" section can stand alone - as a call to > action - with pointers to specifics (bulleted list! Agg!) That's true. I'm not going to break it out yet, though, as I think it's valuable to have the whole overview document achieve coherence and topic completeness before I explode it to subpages. (One obvious failure mode if I don't do that is that the document could bloat without it being easy to notice.) > My thought is that this piece is still WAY too long. And it could use > some graphics. (And PSA music) I took out your image cookies because I consider them an instance of the better being an enemy of the good. When we have an artist/animator, I'll work with him enthusiastically. Until then, makes no sense to optimize the document design for a capability we don't have. As for way too long...I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I do intend to edit for conciseness. On the other hand, there needs to be *some* overview that is topic-complete, and that implies letting it be as long as the content requires. If I don't write that here and now, I'll just have to do it another time under another guise. > What's the elevator pitch? The first two paragraphs. I'm going to add a third that says "Here's the one-sentence version of the problem...", but that has to be *very* carefully crafted. -- Eric S. Raymond