On 05-Sep-01, 16:35 (CDT), Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 05 Sep 2001, T.Pospisek's MailLists wrote: > > > > But tell me *one* thing: > > > > Why is it so hard to change a few lines and have the default be > > set to *off* and let whoever feels like it enable it? > > Because apparently Xu feels equally strong about not allowing someone else's > irresponsability (the router firmware writer's) to force him to disable > something he believes is right (or force him to change the default kernel > behaviour against upstream wishes, or whatever) ?
1. The default kernel behavior is that ECN is completely disabled. 2. While I happen to agree that ECN is a good thing, and that routers that screw it up *are* broken and violating old RFCs (reserved is reserved, not "let's zero it out 'cause we don't know what it means"), I can't help but think that if someone's first experience with Debian is that the network install fails silently because ECN is enabled and some router between him and the archive is broken then we have failed to meet our (implied?)commitment in the Social Contract. All the newbie is going to know is that it doesn't work. Boy, I'm glad we've made our political point. 3. ECN-broken routers are not equivalent to non-compliant IMAP clients. I don't know about you, but I don't have control over the path my packets take over the internet. If there's a broken router in that path, there's not a whole lot I can do about it. And for that matter, there are lots of clients and servers with code to accommodate broken-but-popular servers and clients (respectively). Steve
