From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp81.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (smtp81.iad3a.emailsrvr.com [173.203.187.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF1853B2A4 for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2022 17:39:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from app34.wa-webapps.iad3a (relay-webapps.rsapps.net [172.27.255.140]) by smtp35.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 64138572A for ; Mon, 8 Aug 2022 17:39:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from deepplum.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by app34.wa-webapps.iad3a (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5024C618B8; Mon, 8 Aug 2022 17:39:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by apps.rackspace.com (Authenticated sender: dpreed@deepplum.com, from: dpreed@deepplum.com) with HTTP; Mon, 8 Aug 2022 17:39:54 -0400 (EDT) X-Auth-ID: dpreed@deepplum.com Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2022 17:39:54 -0400 (EDT) From: "David P. Reed" To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_20220808173954000000_12072" Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Type: html In-Reply-To: References: X-Client-IP: 209.6.168.128 Message-ID: <1659994794.324713695@apps.rackspace.com> X-Mailer: webmail/19.0.17-RC X-Classification-ID: 931a5636-8696-4f6f-a231-2916295a761c-1-1 Subject: Re: [Starlink] =?utf-8?q?SIGCOMM_MIT_paper=3A_Starvation_in_e2e_conge?= =?utf-8?q?stion_______control?= X-BeenThere: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: "Starlink has bufferbloat. Bad." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2022 21:39:54 -0000 ------=_20220808173954000000_12072 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =0ATwo things:=0A =0A1) Do they understand Fair Queuing among flows? I actu= ally doubt it or they would have commented on it, to be intellectually hone= st.=0ABut maybe they will publish another paper that includes that? I get r= eally frustrated when reviewers don't force papers to address well-known co= ntradictory evidence. What are reviewers and referees who are expert in the= field for if not that? (my crankiness is justified, I believe, by my commi= tment to research quality. But hey, maybe MIT CSAIL faculty and SIGCOMM don= 't care about quality? Or maybe there's been nothing published about FQ?=0A= =0A2) I absolutely hate folks who invent "theorems" that say you can have = "any two of three" properties. It's become popular in computer systems rese= arch, but it actually creates a huge intellectual mess.=0AThe CAP theorem, = for example has some very peculiar definitions in order to make C, A, and P= "independent" axes. Of course they are NOT independent in engineering prac= tice. In fact, they aren't even "binary" - there's no "yes" or "no" to C, A= or P - they are not even spectra that map to some increasing sequence.=0AY= es, you can't always get what you want. But you can almost always get what = you need, and that is never a specific two out of three.=0AEspecially not i= n queue management algorithms.=0AGoddamn cutesy anti-intellectuals.=0A ------=_20220808173954000000_12072 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Two things:

=0A

 

=0A

1) Do they understand Fa= ir Queuing among flows? I actually doubt it or they would have commented on= it, to be intellectually honest.

=0A

But maybe they= will publish another paper that includes that? I get really frustrated whe= n reviewers don't force papers to address well-known contradictory evidence= . What are reviewers and referees who are expert in the field for if not th= at? (my crankiness is justified, I believe, by my commitment to research qu= ality. But hey, maybe MIT CSAIL faculty and SIGCOMM don't care about qualit= y? Or maybe there's been nothing published about FQ?

=0A

 

=0A

2) I absolutely hate folks who inven= t "theorems" that say you can have "any two of three" properties. It's beco= me popular in computer systems research, but it actually creates a huge int= ellectual mess.

=0A

The CAP theorem, for example has= some very peculiar definitions in order to make C, A, and P "independent" = axes. Of course they are NOT independent in engineering practice. In fact, = they aren't even "binary" - there's no "yes" or "no" to C, A or P - they ar= e not even spectra that map to some increasing sequence.

=0A

Yes, you can't always get what you want. But you can almost always= get what you need, and that is never a specific two out of three.

=0AEspecially not in queue management algorithms.

=0A

Goddamn cutesy anti-intellectuals.

=0A

 

 ------=_20220808173954000000_12072--