<!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">Sorry - I figured everyone
on this list knew the paper itself, since it's cited all over the
place, so I was being a little bit terse. Anyway, one place you can
get the original paper text is online at </font><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/endtoend/endtoend.pdf">http://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/endtoend/endtoend.pdf</a>
.<br>
<br>
We also wrote a followup paper in the "active networks" era that tries
to carefully explain how the same approach can be helpful in thinking
about "active networks":
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/endtoend/ANe2ecomment.html">http://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/endtoend/ANe2ecomment.html</a>
(this was published in IEEE Networking, or some other IEEE pub, as I
recall).<br>
Some will remember that "active networking" was viewed as an idea that
made the end-to-end argument "obsolete" - I personally think that that
was a conclusion based on a misunderstanding about what we meant - and
this second paper refines the point we made in the first paper.<br>
<br>
Saltzer, Clark, and I have separately extended and adapted the original
ideas. Perhaps the most interesting recent idea is Dave Clark's
unpublished talk and note which focuses on a "Trust-to-Trust principle"
that I have urged him to write up. I don't think it is published yet.<br>
<br>
Dave and Marjorie Blumenthal have also written a paper on a range of
areas where policy functions might best be done in the network. I
don't have a link to it, but here's a citation. M. Blumenthal, D. Clark,<i>Rethinking
the Design of the Internet: The End-to-end Arguments vs. the Brave New
World</i>, ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, 1(1):70-109, August
2001
.<br>
<br>
I can't help adding: Of course there are lots of people who use the
word "end-to-end" when they mean, for example, "TCP is perfect". (I'm
not one of them: I have about 40,000 complaints with TCP and IP, so
it's especially galling to be accused of claiming that TCP is the best
of all possible protocols - often as a straw man. TCP's merely good
enough, IMHO, to apply a different and older argument: if it ain't
broke, don't fix it. But by all means experiment with improvements and
alternatives).<br>
<br>
On 10/23/2009 12:08 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4AE1D4E6.2010105@bbiw.net" type="cite">David,
<br>
<br>
I'm asking to explore this carefully and inclusively.
<br>
<br>
Since you are putting a reference forward, what is the citation to it?
<br>
<br>
d/
<br>
<br>
<br>
David P. Reed wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">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.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>