I really don't understand where you're coming from.
But the post did not "spend 95% of the time showing the other side is wrong", and it's really rich to say that at the same time as you're saying that it's seasy for readers to miss the damning sentences when they're not "dominating the whole text". Most of the post was discussing the age old problem of TCP implementations needing to be bug-compatible with each other. In addition it showed a new (to me) example of this phenomenon, and did a detour into explaining why that bug was easier to trigger with our stack than some others.
It's like tou've for some reason decided that I don't understand that there are broken implementations around, that it came as a complete surprise to me, and that the only thing that matters is that I'm right and the other guy is wrong. But the whole point of the post was exactly that it doesn't matter if you're right or not. If you want a production quality TCP implementation you need to support what's out there, not what's in the spec.
The short term solution was a configuration change to force a 1s SYN retransmit timeout, even if that's a 99.9th percentile handshake RTT in this environment. In the longer term we need to evaluate the timeouts in the most widely deployed systems, so that we can offer a calibrated set of completely safe / reasonable / aggressive values.
For example one of the links in the post suggests that OS X has a 700ms SYN retransmit timeout. If that's true (haven't tested yet), and the same is true for iOS, then a 700ms timeout might be a pretty reasonable setting rather than an aggressive one. Because if a piece of kit fails for iOS traffic, it's not going to remain in service for long ;-)
One of those cases where you can't do much more than follow the herd.
I'm glad to learn that your first solution matched exactly what I assumed it would be. Had the solution been present in the article, I certainly wouldn't comment that it's just "look how others on the internet are wrong."
Thank you for sharing these new details. Together with them I have much better feeling for getting involved in reading it and discussing it. In my view the approach to solution as you stated now matches with the concepts I've stood for in my comments here. I wish you luck in your endeavours.
But the post did not "spend 95% of the time showing the other side is wrong", and it's really rich to say that at the same time as you're saying that it's seasy for readers to miss the damning sentences when they're not "dominating the whole text". Most of the post was discussing the age old problem of TCP implementations needing to be bug-compatible with each other. In addition it showed a new (to me) example of this phenomenon, and did a detour into explaining why that bug was easier to trigger with our stack than some others.
It's like tou've for some reason decided that I don't understand that there are broken implementations around, that it came as a complete surprise to me, and that the only thing that matters is that I'm right and the other guy is wrong. But the whole point of the post was exactly that it doesn't matter if you're right or not. If you want a production quality TCP implementation you need to support what's out there, not what's in the spec.