[Tsvwg] Re: [e2e] e2e principle..where??....

Manish Karir karir at wam.umd.edu
Sun Jun 3 09:40:01 PDT 2001

yes, but whose semantics are we talking about, I think is what the
original question was trying to get at.

The e2e principle as outlined in the paper..is quite general (like saying 
"thou shalt not lie") and I was attempting to figure out its 
boundaries by applying it to a very common and simple example of 
web proxies.

so getting back to the example then, of client---proxy----server
the client--proxy segment sees "correct" semantics...
the proxy--server segment sees "correct" semantics...
the proxy does not tinker with the contents
so can we argue that this system does not violate e2e? 

the responses uptill now have surprisingly indicated that this is indeed
the case(nobody has said this explicitly..but thats what it looks
like....), subject to the condition that the proxy is application 
level, and that it does not change data/headers..

If we do however find that this example system violates e2e principles
then we have to question it relevance(basically, whats the point of 
a guideline that says "thou shalt not lie" if everybodys going to 
ignore it anyways...basically what use does the principle serve?

the third possible solution is that the answer lies in a grey area...
which amounts to saying, "it depends" on how the proxy works...
in which case we determine that the e2e principle is too vague and needs 
clearer defination of what an end system really is, what
"semantics" mean..etc..etc..

manish karir

On Sat, 2 Jun 2001, Randy Bush wrote:

> > To be more specific, tinkering with the content does NOT preserve the 
> > semantics in most cases.
> in fact, if the tinkerer did not mean to alter the semantics, then why the
> heck would they tinker?

More information about the end2end-interest mailing list