[e2e] Protocols breaking the end-to-end argument
day at std.com
Sat Oct 24 19:16:35 PDT 2009
>The reference to the "ISO protocol wars" is completely mystifying, as the
>architecture of the ISO stack (at least, the CLNP/TP4 flavour, which was the
>subset which gave TCP/IP the best 'run for their money') is basically
>identical to that of TCP/IP (modulo disagreements on certain arcane points,
>such as exactly what kind of abstract entities the names at the various levels
>refer to - a subject wholly unrelated to the end-end debate).
Cmon Noel, you know better than that. That was never what the
protocol wars were about.
It was not a war between CLNP/TP4 and TCP/IP, but a war between
(CLNP/TP4; TCP/IP) and X.25. The argument at the time by the PTTs
was that a Transport Protocol was unnecessary. Our argument, of
course, was that it was absolutely necessary. This was the big
argument from about 1976 to 1985. This is primarily what the
end-to-end paper discusses and tries to create a "higher moral
ground" by creating a more general (and hence more fundamental)
principle to base the debate on.
It was only later that the unwashed in the IETF turned it into a CLNP
vs IP war.
More information about the end2end-interest