> A known limitation of the base Raft protocol is that partial/asymmetric network partitions can cause a loss of liveness [27, 32]. For instance, if a leader can no longer make progress because it cannot receive messages from the other nodes, it continues to send AE heartbeats to followers, preventing them from timing out and from electing a new leader who can make progress.

(Howard, Abram et al)

Me: note this can also occur if there isn't a complete outage, if the latency back to the shit leader is different from the latency out of the shit leader.

> nobody ships consensus implementations exactly in line with the original paper. There are dozens or hundreds of papers on variations

As the paper above explains once you add extensions you might have broken the correctness proofs in raft. More to the original point, you're now in a state where it's no longer "simple"... I would go so far as to say if you have to consider the extensions, which are distributed over several papers and sometimes not even papers at all, you're in "deceptively simple" land.

As a pedagogical tool, raft is valuable because it can be a launching ground for conversations like these... But maybe we shouldn't use it in prod when there are better, straightforward options? I get the feeling that being hard sold as simple nerdsniped devs into writing it and someone r/very smart put it into prod and with social proof more people did and now here we are