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

Noel Chiappa jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Sun Oct 25 08:44:14 PDT 2009

    > From: Richard Bennett <richard at bennett.com>

    > On the subject of BBN's standing in the early Internet community, I'll
    > simply note that the term "Big Bad Neighbor" was a common usage that I
    > did not coin myself, and Steve Crocker's comments in RFC 1 had a
    > well-understood subtext.

I think you're confusing the "early Internet community" with the 'early
ARPANet community'.

The view of the various divisions at BBN (since at one point the Internet work
was being done in a different division of BBN from that responsible for the
ARPANet) by other workers in the early Internet community was a complex, and
hence lengthy, one - and also off-scope for this list (may I suggest the
'Internet-history' list if you really want to explore the topic).

It seems to me that the 'end-end design ideas' have gotten mixed up in what
is, at the bottom, a fight over how to divide up the economic pie of
communication networks.

This is not an unknown occurrence - scientific work on things like the size
of the Artic ice-sheet, and discovery of new fossil species, has equally
become wound up in disputes which are far larger.

I don't have any pithy response to that, and any longer comment would also be
off-topic, so I will simply make the observation and leave it there.


More information about the end2end-interest mailing list