From: Adam (suckmy-balls.com)
Date: Fri Dec 17 2004 - 13:29:34 CST

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 11:13:38AM -0700, Tobias Weingartner wrote:
> On Friday, December 17, Adam wrote:
> >
> > The point is, do people claim TCP is broken because some crappy switch
> > always uses the same ISN? Faulty implimentations do not make a protocol
> > "broken".
>
> Bluntly? Yes, if you're using the same ISN for every TCP connection,
> your TCP stack is broken.

This is what I am saying. So a sketchy print server would have a broken
TCP stack, certainly. But does that mean you can forever more proclaim
that "TCP is broken"? Certainly not, TCP itself works fine, broken
implimentations can't be blamed on the protocol itself.

> entirely on what you define as a protocol. Your e-mail seemed to have
> some blurring between hardware, software, protocol, and protocol specs.

It was just an example. Autoneg is a protocol, and it works great.
Broken implimentations can't be blamed on the protocol, clearly the
protocol can be implimented correctly.

Adam

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]