[e2e] Protocols breaking the end-to-end argument
David P. Reed
dpreed at reed.com
Fri Oct 23 08:41:57 PDT 2009
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.
On 10/23/2009 11:28 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> David P. Reed wrote:
>> 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.
> 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.
> Can you or anyone else point to a definition that
> a) gives meaningful technical definition of "end to end",
> sufficient to make differential conformance assessments reasonable.
> b) provide any basis for believing that that definition has broad
> use within the technical community?
> Absent the ability to satisfy this query, we ought to consider an
> effort to move towards being able to.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the end2end-interest