From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 21:04:32 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [TUHS] V7 Addendem [ really lawyers and AT&T consent decree ]
Message-ID: <20171212020432.4821118C08C@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>

    > From: George Michaelson

    > I don't think this list is the right place to conduct that particular
    > debate.

Not disagreeing; my message was a very short gloss on a very complicated
situation, and I wasn't trying to push any particular position, just pointing
out that work (whether the right direction, or not, I didn't opine) had been
done.

    > Its true RSVP didn't get traction, but the economics which underpin it
    > are pretty bad, for the current Internet model of settlement

Yes, but would _any_ resource reservation system, even one that _was_
'perfect', have caught on? Because:

    > it would not surprise me if there is ... more dropped packets than
    > strictly speaking the glass expects.

This is related to something I didn't mention; if there is a lot more
bandwidth (in the loose sense, not the exact original meaning) than demand,
then resource reservation mechanisms buy you nothing, and are a lot of
complexity.

While there were bandwidth shortages in the 90s, later on they pretty much
went away. So I think the perception (truth?) that there was a lot of headroom
(and thus no need for resource reservation, to do applications like voice)
played a really big role in the lack of interest (or so people argued at the
time, in saying IntServ wasn't needed).

       Noel