[e2e] Protocols breaking the end-to-end argument
mbaer at cs.tu-berlin.de
Fri Oct 23 22:46:05 PDT 2009
Lloyd Wood wrote:
> 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.
The word "principle" appears *only* in the abstract, plus in the second
and the penultimate sentence of the 1984 paper. The content of the
paper, however, is very much about arguments (as in debate), not
principle (as in strict and not to argue with), maybe not even so much
about argument (as in "one logical conclusion to an irrefutable reasoning").
With all respect for the authors, we all know how abstracts are
typically written: It is often the very last thing on one's mind, even
though it should be the very first (although or possibly just because
written at the end of the process). Often, they are either totally
redundant (just repeating phrases from the content), or they exaggerate
things in a bid to draw the reader to the content. Rarely do they
capture precisely the essence of a paper.
An aside: I'd be interested to see the the 1981 version, and whether it
is much different from the 1984 one. Does anyone have it?
More information about the end2end-interest