[e2e] end to end arguments in systems design

L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk L.Wood at surrey.ac.uk
Thu Dec 6 07:17:46 PST 2007


I think the prevailing consensus is "who cares?"

I've recently noticed that RFCs can get published without any
reference to how end-to-to-end reliability is ensured, even when
it's extremely relevant to the protocol being described and the
design decisions made for that protocol. This is not good -
particularly when detailing a new transport protocol or
entire architecture. Error detection and reliability can't just
be ignored.

An 'Implications for end-to-end reliability' section should imo
be mandated to sit alongside the security implications
section in all RFCs.


<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/><L.Wood at surrey.ac.uk>

-----Original Message-----
From: end2end-interest-bounces at postel.org on behalf of Jon Crowcroft
Sent: Thu 2007-12-06 14:23
To: e2e IRTF list
Subject: [e2e] end to end arguments in systems design
I havnt seen any email on this list for days now, and before that 
traffic here has been steadily decreasing over the last few years.

does this mean that the "arguments" are over? 

did I miss the conclusion? who won? who lost?

meanwhile, life gets more complex...

...and yet simpler...

and yet applications burgeon....
just in the  internet supported inter-personal communications space,
we have...

email, IM, sms, facebook, myspace, twitter, wiki, blogs, rss, pub/sub,
pstn/cell/phone/voip/skype, pdas, pagers, and PVRs,
and others, all of which can alert us in new and wonderful ways - i'd quite like a funnel

so I could pipe together all the events and then aggregate them in some semantically 
rich way...of course, virtually none of them is e2e:)


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/attachments/20071206/24f76887/attachment.html

More information about the end2end-interest mailing list