nanog mailing list archives
Re: Recent trouble with QUIC?
From: Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 20:20:06 -0700
On 27 September 2015 at 18:38, Lyle Giese <lyle () lcrcomputer net> wrote:
Part of freedom is to minimize the harm and I think that is where the parties replying to this thread diverge. A broken change that causes harm should have/could have been tested better before releasing it to the public on the Internet. Or if a bad release is let loose on the Internet, how does Google minimize the harm?
How would this be any different by google introducing TCP related issue in their frontend servers? This is not a protocol issue, this is QA issue that could impact arbitrary technology. I'd like to say I've not broken stuff by misunderstanding impact of my changes, but unfortunately I can't. -- ++ytti
Current thread:
- Recent trouble with QUIC?, (continued)
- Recent trouble with QUIC? Ca By (Sep 25)
- Re: Recent trouble with QUIC? chris (Sep 25)
- Re: Recent trouble with QUIC? Stephen Satchell (Sep 25)
- Re: Recent trouble with QUIC? Sean Hunter (Sep 25)
- Re: Recent trouble with QUIC? Matthew Kaufman (Sep 25)
- Re: Recent trouble with QUIC? Mike Hale (Sep 26)
- Re: Recent trouble with QUIC? James Bensley (Sep 26)
- Recent trouble with QUIC? Ca By (Sep 25)
- Re: Recent trouble with QUIC? Saku Ytti (Sep 27)
- Re: Recent trouble with QUIC? Lyle Giese (Sep 27)
- Re: Recent trouble with QUIC? Matthew Kaufman (Sep 27)
- Re: Recent trouble with QUIC? Saku Ytti (Sep 27)
- Re: Recent trouble with QUIC? Cody Grosskopf (Sep 28)
- Re: Recent trouble with QUIC? Alan Buxey (Sep 27)