<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif">I'd suggest reading the paper
where it was originally defined. Given that the three authors AND a
crew of peer reviewers touched every word of the definition, it's
pretty darned specific.</font><br>
<br>
On 10/23/2009 11:28 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4AE1CB96.3020203@dcrocker.net" type="cite"><br>
<br>
David P. Reed wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I'd reframe the statement, just because I
would actually like the term "end-to-end argument" to continue to mean
what we defined it to mean, rather than what some people have extended
it to mean.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
Interesting. My sense of things is that the term is not actually
defined all that concretely or consistently and that this has made it
difficult to use the term constructively.
<br>
<br>
Can you or anyone else point to a definition that
<br>
<br>
a) gives meaningful technical definition of "end to end", sufficient
to make differential conformance assessments reasonable.
<br>
<br>
b) provide any basis for believing that that definition has broad
use within the technical community?
<br>
<br>
Absent the ability to satisfy this query, we ought to consider an
effort to move towards being able to.
<br>
<br>
d/
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>