[e2e] Protocols breaking the end-to-end argument

[David P. Reed]

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.
>
> d/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/attachments/20091023/eec35888/attachment.html