Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

On Mar 5, 2013, at 18:58, Bob Braden <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Which is why we learned 30 years ago that building a transport protocol at the application layer is generally a Bad Idea. Why do the same bad ideas keep being reinvented?

Because we don't have a good selection of transport protocols at the transport layer.

I'm chairing one of the WGs with a UDP-based application protocol.
TCP's congestion control, even if we could use TCP, wouldn't do much for us.

Now here is my point:
I need TSV ADs that are strong on the technical side.
A weak TSV AD might be
-- too cautious, listening to all kinds of Cassandras that haven't bothered to look at the actual protocol, slowing us down unneededly, or
-- too bold, allowing us to deploy a protocol that causes a congestion collapse that can only be alleviated by physically chiseling nodes out of walls.

Clearly, I want neither of these to happen.
(Now, we have received pretty good transport input in 2012, but the IESG will look at this in 2013, and that's where a highly educated decision has to be made.)

Grüße, Carsten