Subject: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL62] Do not space probes randomly

From: Erik Guttman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 01:11:53 +0200

Please post discussion of this issue to the mailing list over the 
next two weeks
ending May 18, 2004.  In order to accept this issued, we will need a strong WG
consensus given that this is very late in the process.

Please see http://www.drizzle.org/~aboba/ZEROCONF/issues.html for a list of
current issues and their status.

[LL62]

Description of Issue:		Do not space probes randomly
Submitter Name:                 Stuart Cheshire
Submitter Email Address:        [email-masked]
Date first submitted:           04 May 04
Reference:			LL31
Comment Type ['t'ech|'e'dit]:	t
Prio ['S' Must|1 should|2 may]:	s
Section:			2.2.1
Rationale/Explanation:
Lengthy Description:

[Stuart]

>    When ready to begin probing, the host should then wait for a random
>    time interval selected uniformly in the range PROBE_MIN to PROBE_MAX
>    seconds, and should then send NUM_PROBES probe packets, spaced
>    randomly, PROBE_MIN to PROBE_MAX seconds apart.

Why space probes randomly? I have still not seen any credible
justification for this, neither credible theoretical analysis, nor
experimental data. This text was introduced because of a misunderstanding
of something Christian Huitema said a year ago, and it's been in the
document ever since. An initial random delay is justified. Further
randomness is just voodoo.

[Erik]

This was debated frequently in the WG over the past year and in each
case the delay was kept in the document. If you really believe that the
current text is not reasonable, please contact Christian and see if he
agrees with you.  As I recall, the WG agreed with Christian, who
supported this text and we ended with rough consensus, with you in a
dissenting position. See LL31.

[Stuart]

I disagee.

I asked frequently for credible debate, but never got any, and the
*misplaced randomness* was kept in the document. (My objection here is
not the delay, or even the randomness; it's the pointless inappropriate
misplaced randomness.)

I did ask Christian Huitema repeatedly, in public and in private, if he
was willing to defend this statement that had been attributed to him, but
he never responded to any of the requests.

[Erik]

Requested Change:

TEXT NEEDED

---

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 08:02:15 +0700

Date:        Wed, 5 May 2004 01:11:53 +0200
    From:        Erik Guttman <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <a05200f11bcbdce72e6c1@[80.139.178.51]>

  | Why space probes randomly? I have still not seen any credible
  | justification for this, neither credible theoretical analysis, nor
  | experimental data. This text was introduced because of a misunderstanding
  | of something Christian Huitema said a year ago, and it's been in the
  | document ever since. An initial random delay is justified. Further
  | randomness is just voodoo.

We have been through this before.   Stuart seems to have a fixation
on one (incorrect) rationale for this, and ignores all attempts to
point out the real reason.

Leave this just as it is (ie: I agree with Christian's response).

kre