[e2e] Protocols breaking the end-to-end argument
Durga Prasad Pandey
dpsmiles at gmail.com
Sun Oct 25 09:18:25 PDT 2009
Actually, after having read Noel's latest email, I realize my email
was redundant(he articulated all I meant to say, and more, much more,
umm, articulately..). Though I love the coincidence in reference to
Einstein. (btw, coincidences are fertile grounds for conspiracy
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 9:02 AM, Durga Prasad Pandey <dpsmiles at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Richard Bennett <richard at bennett.com> wrote:
>> I don't know why this question should get anybody upset, it's just a
>> question about the context and motivation of the paper in the first place.
>> None of the authors was part of the inner circle of the Internet protocol
>> design at the time the paper was written, although Clark was either the
>> Chief Architect of the Internet or on his way to becoming same. I would have
>> expected Cerf and Kahn to write something explaining the architectural
>> decisions they made in adapting the framework to their system, but their
>> failure to do so meant someone else had to do it. Why these three people and
>> why this particular time? It's never been explained.
> Is your next email going to be about(humor me..) how a secret
> underground cult (now called NASA) funded a young clerk called
> Einstein to produce theories of relativity so they could "stage" the
> spage age and eventually perform a cultish ritual on the moon?
> (Actually I could have sold this storyline to Dan Brown for gazillions
> of dollars.)
> You quite obviously love conspiracy theories + juicy gossip and were
> probably looking for some in your first email on this thread. Now you
> are going to ridiculous lengths to explain yourself. :)
>> Why these three people and why this particular time? It's never been explained.
> This is a flagship question of conspiracy theorists.
> You ask:
>>>One of the more interesting unresolved questions about "End-to-End Args" is why it was written in the first place. Some people see it as a salvo in the ISO protocol wars, others as an attack in BBN's >>ARPANET, some as an attempt to criss the divide between engineering and policy, and there are probably other theories as well.
> Conspiracy theories you mean?
> One could ask these questions of almost any paper ever published. The
> subtle thing they do is gently cast aspersions on the authors'
> motivations. That's not a good thing to be trying to do.
> The one good thing that your questions did is provoke detailed
> responses from different people, some of which were very informative
> to me(having been conceived well after TCP/IP, I do not have the
> unique historical experience a lot of people on this list do). I liked
> Dave Anderson's summary of the e2e paper too.
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can
change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.”
-- Margaret Mead
More information about the end2end-interest