From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id cae7525e for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 15:34:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 505A1A19F9; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 01:34:14 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B86A5A19D3; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 01:34:00 +1000 (AEST) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 9CAFDA19D3; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 01:33:59 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail1.g22.pair.com (mail1.g22.pair.com [66.39.65.155]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 501199EC27 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 01:33:59 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail1.g22.pair.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail1.g22.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99F6848496E; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 11:33:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.1.175] (unknown [213.205.198.165]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail1.g22.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3FDAD44984A; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 11:33:58 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) From: Tim Bradshaw In-Reply-To: <24E1059F-F3ED-45EE-915E-6F32EFBAFA50@tfeb.org> Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 16:33:57 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <5808F9AB-0860-457B-BA04-4DBD67B5ACFB@tfeb.org> References: <20180617175814.D8BAD18C0A7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <24E1059F-F3ED-45EE-915E-6F32EFBAFA50@tfeb.org> To: Noel Chiappa X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) Subject: Re: [TUHS] core X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: tuhs@tuhs.org Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" > On 18 Jun 2018, at 15:33, Noel Chiappa = wrote: >=20 > When you say "if implementation of the specification is too = complicated it > will fail", I think you mean 'the specification is so complex that = _any_ > implementation must _necessarily_ be so complex that all the = implementations, > and thus the specification itself, will fail'? Yes, except that I don't think the specification itself has to be = complex, it just needs to require implementations be hard, = computationally expensive, or both. For instance a specification for = integer arithmetic in a programming language which required that (a/b)*b = be a except where b is zero isn't complicated, I think, but it requires = implementations which are either hard, computationally-expensive or = both. >=20 > And for "in which case the specification which allowed the simple > implementation will eventually become a problem", I think that's part = of your > saying 'you get to pick your poison; either the spec is so complicated = it > fails right away, or if it's simple enough to succeed in the short = term, it > will neccessarily fail in the long term'? Yes, with the above caveat about the spec not needing to be complicated, = and I'd say something like 'become limiting in the long term' rather = than 'fail in the long term'. So I think your idea was that, if there's a choice between a = do-the-right-thing, future-proof (variable-length-address field) = solution or a will-work-for-now, implementationally-simpler = (fixed-length) solution, then you should do the right thing, because if = the thing fails it makes no odds and if it succeeds then you will regret = the second solution. My caveat is that success (in the sense of wide = adoption) is not independent of which solution you pick, and in = particular that will-work-for-now solutions are much more likely to = succeed than do-the-right-thing ones. As I said, I don't know whether this applies to IP. --tim=