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

Lloyd Wood L.Wood at surrey.ac.uk
Fri Oct 23 16:20:27 PDT 2009

On 23 Oct 2009, at 22:33, David P. Reed wrote:
> In particular: there was never an "end-to-end principle".  So if you  
> get the title wrong, why should we trust you to get the details right?

because "end-to-end argument principle" is appalling grammar. The word  
"principle" appears multiple times in the paper, including the  
abstract and conclusions.

"No one gets angry at a mathematician or a physicist whom he or she  
doesn't understand, or at someone who speaks a foreign language, but  
rather at someone who tampers with your own language." -- Jacques  


DTN work: http://info.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/saratoga/

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

More information about the end2end-interest mailing list