[e2e] Protocols breaking the end-to-end argument
jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Fri Oct 23 09:58:35 PDT 2009
> From: Dave CROCKER <dhc2 at dcrocker.net>
> My sense of things is that the term is not actually defined all that
> concretely or consistently
Sorry, I disagree. The original Saltzer/Clark/Reed paper does a pretty
good job, I think - as well as one can do with a broad architectural
concept, which is inherently not as susceptible to precise definition as,
say, an algorithm.
> this has made it difficult to use the term constructively.
No, people being bozos and not using the term _as it wss originally
defined_ are what has made its use problematic.
More information about the end2end-interest