Re: [PANRG] Updated text on ECN: draft-irtf-panrg-what-not-to-do-19 to be ...

[Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for doing this Spencer!

This particular bit doesn't seem to read correctly:

On 24/03/2021 14:45, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
> *During discussion of ECN at {{PANRG-110}}, we noted that "you get one 
> chance to get it right" isn't quite correct today, because so 
> operating systems on so many host systems are frequently updated, 
> which was not at all true in the early 2000s. We think that these 
> restatements of the ECN Lessons Learned are more useful for current 
> implementers: *

Is there a sprurious "so"?

- I think the argument that OS "*are frequently updated" does not sit so 
well with me. True, there are many updates that simply were not as often 
in the early 2000s. It's still quite painful introducing innovation in 
some parts of the OS.
*

*- Also perhaps more important, QUIC argued these were not enough to 
allow innovation so moved to userland stacks.
*

*I wonder then whether the words "operating systems" are actually better 
written as "protocol stacks"?*

*Gorry
*