[e2e] Protocols breaking the end-to-end argument
Jon.Crowcroft at cl.cam.ac.uk
Sat Oct 24 01:41:01 PDT 2009
one of the problems is language evolution/erosion
for some people
an end-to-end _argument_
is an argument for everything
being in the end point
as opposed to the more
meaning of the aforesaid paper(s)
in which it is a
set of dynamic debates
which set a tension
between whether you put something
in the end,
in the end,
(i.e. in the intermediate).
the "argument" then is not a polemic
but a method or process (or dialectic)
that can and should be
as technology and the environment
In missive <20091023165835.1D4E66BE5F8 at mercury.lcs.mit.edu>, Noel Chia
>> > From: Dave CROCKER <dhc2 at dcrocker.net>
>> > My sense of things is that the term is not actually defined all that
>> > concretely or consistently
>>Sorry, I disagree. The original Saltzer/Clark/Reed paper does a pretty
>>good job, I think - as well as one can do with a broad architectural
>>concept, which is inherently not as susceptible to precise definition as,
>>say, an algorithm.
>> > this has made it difficult to use the term constructively.
>>No, people being bozos and not using the term _as it wss originally
>>defined_ are what has made its use problematic.
More information about the end2end-interest