On Jun 28, 2013, at 5:24 PM, Octavio Alvarez <alvar...@alvarezp.ods.org> wrote:
> That's the point exactly. Google has more power and popularity to
> influence adoption of a protocol, just like with SPDY and QUIC.
This is the main reason why I'm very supportive of this effort. I'm a bit
skeptical of what I have read so far, but I know that it's nearly impossible to
tell how these things really work from theory and simulations. Live, real
world testing is required competing with all sorts of other flows.
Google with their hands in both things like www.google.com and Chrome is in an
interesting position to implement server and client side of these
implementations, and turn them on and off at will. They can do the real world
tests, tweak, report on them, and advance the state of the art.
So for now I'll reserve judgement on this particular protocol, while
encouraging Google to do more of this sort of real world testing at the
protocol level.
Now, how about an SCTP test? :)
--
Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
