[e2e] a means to an end

[David P. Reed]

Our dear friend, Van Jacobsen, has decided that layering "where" under 
"what" with regard to data is neither necessary, nor a good idea.

I agree: confusing the container with the information it happens to hold 
is a layer violation.  Information is not bound to place, nor is there a 
primary instance.  Information is place-free, and perhaps the idea that 
there must be a "place" where it "is" is an idea whose time should pass, 
and the purveyors of that idea as a holy writ (the OSI layering) retired 
to play golf.

Craig Partridge wrote:
> In message <49134E2F.8010704 at reed.com>, "David P. Reed" writes:
>
>   
>> Why should "location" be relevant to networking?   Must all wires be 
>> buried permanently in the ground?  Does wireless and mobility not occur?
>>     
>
> I think it is easier to see the merit of location when one thinks about
> retrieving data.  You need some clue as to where the data is.
>
> Craig
>
>