Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"?

Michael Thomas <> Mon, 19 April 2021 18:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5ED43A3D20 for <>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 11:05:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.149
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ekt1jDmVv7hv for <>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 11:05:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::431]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DFB53A3D1B for <>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 11:05:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id i190so23719792pfc.12 for <>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 11:05:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=fluffulence; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=YlA8kAvZskqv4wY0A6dqSB5L4DqsADCXiBHfzWrRF88=; b=VXRrGvbVKZ5Fbvfd8wOXUy6o9PVZHNkWKPTwFM+44yVV7Kb2k31YZo7La5H3Rz9jC0 CksU0ajLNJeDZ6T79+8qqSYR+5oYoaSitqd3C7I0Z7ryr/tzPPkZeSwMsgTE76UlCd/4 XV2RlcQUnV9JmQzC/p2AgOxYepBGYswBpOmOSHRFZykUuNdLPZB11D25pxWobMWIZ5YE qSKwOIpE2rHwhfKUEVUhdP/9lxkeLiOUYrFOzXhgGGqrSTbKD6F8Bw6lEt+86pNEp2zR Kox79b1eRRT4a1mI2PqGiroTrJhgvLdValqWPdRIR0EGV7f80oopkCNXBLoizn2+qXrw akJA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=YlA8kAvZskqv4wY0A6dqSB5L4DqsADCXiBHfzWrRF88=; b=XDk7kK2Dha4mXJAXv20bDH7W2rZKyuSMdpTHyjWu4W9GLZLjhxoHymfoy3sYaHiy90 oMbFtMuHQhHKI/mXKRM+eXmKuXkduJIexHa5wA0YZtfM/EJTVkYVuMbNJ2iZIvOkZDUl loHk6y0ZSAE9NbfSs1LWY0x6QBSQwydljPcYDQjgs03Vjdrm7j7VB/k89lDPyGhR/sPw 3gkkIA7LziHXkeHksdNADJw3FniIssPymt0qygeI3fg7KH9/4DFVesqorQ+hCzgdzPav kFD9ffVGxVzHlXqxfwbqGmS54AX4mN3locO4nTILY8+p/nwRUZx+W1+qsnf/qczI/fTb pdKQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532BKCe6ZfDV5RsXkQmuuiL5Cr5fI+BvKn23e3aLeC7jdNGzVPLa snDkebeIpV5f//2YMnt1sXwGh1tWDp/ylg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwYq9havlVg5UuCGFMKMR/731snYMITWDworxuv+0Y2hssTy7E9NT0Tjou45hUDtEqBxe2uNA==
X-Received: by 2002:a65:4d49:: with SMTP id j9mr12719995pgt.113.1618855519364; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 11:05:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mike-mac.lan ( []) by with ESMTPSA id m20sm11610251pfk.133.2021. for <> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 19 Apr 2021 11:05:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: What's the alternative to "snarling"?
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <433863C0CD9449636063CDE3@PSB> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Michael Thomas <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 11:05:17 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 18:05:26 -0000

On 4/19/21 10:42 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
> On 4/19/21 1:30 PM, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>> Agree. But that requires careful listening to their ideas, as well
>> as a willingness to examine dogma.
> And the amount of careful listening required is often roughly the same 
> for a Bad Idea versus a promising idea.   Wrapping your head around 
> someone else's idea is hard work, especially when you have to 
> re-examine deeply held assumptions to do so.   Also the difference 
> between a really Bad Idea and a more promising idea might be subtle, 
> as in: if you make this slight change, it would be a much better 
> idea.   So you not only need to examine the presumably bad idea but 
> also some amount of variation around that idea.
The real issue if you ask me is whether a new and better idea overcomes 
the energy barrier to matter. With something old and established that 
barrier is extremely high. For Quic, for example, we've had 20+ years of 
an 8 packet startup handshake before that energy barrier was overcome to 
get to 5 packets, and who knows how many years it will be to get it back 
to 3 if ever even though it's perfectly possible to fix. ObMe: I haven't 
joined the Quic mailing list mainly because I'm not sure I want to 
endure yet another snarling match from entrenched powers that be. Maybe 
I will, but it's a fairly typical outcome in my experience that that is 
what will happen.