aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorDimitri Staessens <[email protected]>2021-08-14 13:21:54 +0200
committerDimitri Staessens <[email protected]>2021-08-14 13:21:54 +0200
commit83d2d780f8c1bc32c105c553f095855eb9912ba8 (patch)
treef47602badbea5bde08e189f05841e7f5a279ced4
parent4624770b7ab1ab330cc634af689a1b5ca5e9f076 (diff)
downloadwebsite-83d2d780f8c1bc32c105c553f095855eb9912ba8.tar.gz
website-83d2d780f8c1bc32c105c553f095855eb9912ba8.zip
docs: Some fixes in problem with OSI
-rw-r--r--content/en/docs/Concepts/problem_osi.md23
1 files changed, 13 insertions, 10 deletions
diff --git a/content/en/docs/Concepts/problem_osi.md b/content/en/docs/Concepts/problem_osi.md
index 2d09102..204d773 100644
--- a/content/en/docs/Concepts/problem_osi.md
+++ b/content/en/docs/Concepts/problem_osi.md
@@ -127,9 +127,11 @@ QUIC runs on top of UDP. If UDP is Layer 4, then what layer is QUIC?
One could argue that UDP is an incomplete Layer 4 protocol and QUIC
adds its missing Layer 4 functionalities. Fair enough, but then what
-is the minimum functionality for each of the protocols? Layer 2
-protocol? What is the minimum function of a Layer 3 protocol? And a
-Layer 4 protocol?
+is the minimum functionality for a complete Layer 4 protocol? And what
+is a minimum functionality for a Layer 3 protocol? What have IP, ICMP
+and IGMP in common that makes them Layer 3 beyond the arbitrary
+concensus that they should be available on a brick of future e-waste
+that is sold as a "router"?
#### Which protocol fits in which layer is not clear-cut.
@@ -153,13 +155,14 @@ are set in stone.
### Are these issues _really_ a problem?
-Well, in my opinion: yes! These models have no predictive value and
-don't even fit with observation of the real-world Internet most of us
-use every day. They are about as arbitrary as a seven-course tasting
-menu of home-grown vegetables. Their only uses are as technobabble for
-network engineers and as tools for university professors to gauge
-their students' ability to retain a moderate amount of
-pseudoscientific dribble.
+Well, in my opinion: yes! These models are pure [rubber
+science](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_science). They have no
+predictive value, don't fit with observations of the real-world
+Internet most of us use every day, and are about as arbitrary as a
+seven-course tasting menu of home-grown vegetables. Their only uses
+are as technobabble for network engineers and as tools for university
+professors to gauge their students' ability to retain a moderate
+amount of stratal dribble.
If there is no universally valid theoretical model, if we have no
clear definitions of the fundamental concepts and no clearly defined