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

David P. Reed dpreed at reed.com
Sat Oct 24 07:12:24 PDT 2009

Since the moderator did not find a problem with Bennett's posting, I 
will request his leave to address Bennett's ouvre and in particular this 
particular posting in a more direct manner, since he has walked into 
this *technical* forum with a variety of outrageous claims directed at 
the motives of me and my co-authors.

On 10/23/2009 11:23 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
> One of the more interesting unresolved questions about "End-to-End 
> Args" is why it was written in the first place. Some people see it as 
> a salvo in the ISO protocol wars, others as an attack in BBN's 
> ARPANET, some as an attempt to criss the divide between engineering 
> and policy, and there are probably other theories as well.
Richard Bennett spends a fair amount of his writing imputing motives to 
people, and then using those motives to somehow impugn their credibility.
The above paragraph is such an example.  (Please note that I am just 
stating a fact about his writing style.  You can read the paper he 
submitted for lots of examples.  He has also imputed that Vint Cerf and 
Bob Kahn "stole" the ideas for the Internet from Pouzin without proper 

Now I don't know if he can read the minds of Jerry Saltzer, Dave Clark, 
or myself in writing the original paper.   However the paragraph quoted 
above is about the most ridiculous claim I have ever heard.  We wrote 
the paper as an attempt to contribute to the art of architecting the 
Internet, as I believe most of the people on this list would 
understand.  However, Bennett has no shame.  He does, however act as a 

More information about the end2end-interest mailing list