[e2e] Port numbers, SRV records or...?
day at std.com
Thu Aug 17 07:26:44 PDT 2006
At 6:49 -0700 2006/08/17, Joe Touch wrote:
>John Day wrote:
>> What I find really remarkable is the inability of current researchers to
>> see beyond what is there. It is interesting that they are so focused on
>> current developments that they are unable to see beyond them.
>Yeah, so far all they've come up with is:
>- the web (addressing at the app layer)
>- DHTs (hash-based addressing)
>- overlays (arbitrary addressing using the Internet as a link layer)
The web on the one hand is just a souped up version of Englebart's
NLS. Addressing within an application doesn't count.
DHTs- How to turn one flat address space into another flat address
space. I see you haven't seen through this one yet.
Overlays - an interesting thought but for now really just trying to
paper over the real problems.
>It's sad that they haven't gotten beyond the Internet's original vision
>of email and remote login. Oh well, back to the drawing board ;-)
>As to whether we are scientists or technicians, that depends on your
>definition. The last time I checked, scientists created theories about
>reality and validated them via observation and iteration. There are
That is only part of it. Remember Newton's Regulae Philosphandi
(guidelines): (in part) Theory should be the fewest number of
concepts to cover the space.
This is why I said engineers are infatuated with creating
differences, while scientists are infatuated with finding
similarities. I don't see much simplification in the Internet over
the last 35 years. In fact, what I see are complexities heaped on
>plenty of those out there; in a sense, the Internet is just a theory
>about how to network, and the iterations are about resolving the theory
Ahhh, now I see, this is the root of the problem. The Internet is
not a theory. It is a very specific engineering example.
>with new uses and ideas - including indirection, virtualization,
>separating process (function) from location from communication
>association - which is how this discussion originated. It's in the
>abstraction of these ideas that there is science.
You are getting closer.
More information about the end2end-interest