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