From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-14-iad.dyndns.com (mxout-076-iad.mailhop.org [216.146.32.76]) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 894342E0182 for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2011 08:14:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from scan-11-iad.mailhop.org (scan-11-iad.local [10.150.0.208]) by mail-14-iad.dyndns.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDC7344B0DD for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2011 16:14:42 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Score: 0.1 () X-Mail-Handler: MailHop by DynDNS X-Originating-IP: 75.145.127.229 Received: from gw.co.teklibre.org (75-145-127-229-Colorado.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [75.145.127.229]) by mail-14-iad.dyndns.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0935444B08F for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2011 16:14:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from cruithne.co.teklibre.org (unknown [IPv6:2002:4b91:7fe5:2:21c:25ff:fe80:46f9]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "cruithne.co.teklibre.org", Issuer "CA Cert Signing Authority" (verified OK)) by gw.co.teklibre.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 517205E8AD for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2011 09:14:40 -0700 (MST) Received: by cruithne.co.teklibre.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5C124121B7D; Sun, 6 Feb 2011 09:14:39 -0700 (MST) From: d@taht.net (Dave =?utf-8?Q?T=C3=A4ht?=) To: Eric Raymond Organization: Teklibre - http://www.teklibre.com References: <20110206154236.64AF720C22E@snark.thyrsus.com> Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 09:14:39 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20110206154236.64AF720C22E@snark.thyrsus.com> (Eric Raymond's message of "Sun, 6 Feb 2011 10:42:36 -0500 (EST)") Message-ID: <87vd0xf8cw.fsf@cruithne.co.teklibre.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Bloat] Letter to CACM? X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list 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 16:14:45 -0000 Eric Raymond writes: > > They had a useful suggestion. They think we ought to ship the overview > as a letter to CACM. "Everybody gets that," they pointed out. I don't but paper had a hard way of getting to me for the last 4 years. > Yeah, I can see it. Getty, J., Raymond, E.S., Taht, D. "Packet Loss > Considered Helpful" OK, I kid about the title. I think the title is expressive, snarky, revolutionary, chock full of wonderful historical references, and people will "get it". :) I do feel that focusing on the desirability of packet loss, alone, would have a marvelously focusing effect on a letter. The wireless side is a quagmire that I hope to get to writing about semi-coherently today. > Should I put this shipping to CACM my to-do list for when the overview > is done? Jim, especially looking for your judgment; you'd be the > obvious designee for lead author even if the alphabetical order didn't > fall that way. How to crack the economist? -- Dave Taht http://nex-6.taht.net