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

[John Day]

>
>
>Read Abbate; TCP/IP versus CLNP/TP4 was a real set-to. As a TCP/IP backer, I
>was far more worried about CLNP/TP4 than I ever was about X.25, which was
>clearly a rusty assegai in a world of repeating rifles.

Read Abbate?  You must be kidding.  Why would I use 3rd hand sources?

You seem to forget, I was there.  Starting with getting datagrams in 
the first X.25 Recommendations (1976) thru the fight to get 
connectionless into OSI.  The debates around the IONL, getting CLNP 
done, ensuring that it named the node so it would be a true Internet 
protocol rather than a subnet  protocol masquerading as an Internet 
protocol.

As I said before, in 1982 there was no CLNP.  In fact, TP4 didn't 
exist either accept as a revised draft of INWG 96/ CYCLADES TS.  The 
connectionless addendum to ISO Reference Model wouldn't even be 
approved as a draft for another year.

It seems that you and Abbate have been looking in the wrong end of 
the telescope.

It would be a little hard for the e2e paper in 1982 to be about the 
CLNP/TP4 vs TCP/IP debate if half the debate didn't exist.


>	Unwashedly yours, :-)
>
>	Noel