Subject: Re: e2e

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:16:09 -0400 (EDT)

> From: John Kristoff <[email-masked]>

    > No, it's not about complexity, but nor is it about robustness. It's
    > about "functionality" and where to place it.
    > ...
    > .. a twice careful read of the original paper that gets referred to so
    > much

I can sympathize with your complaint; I got so irked by people
misunderstanding what the end-end principle was (along another axis - state)
that I wrote a rant about it ("Will The Real 'End-End Principle' Please Stand
Up?"), available here:

  http://www.chiappa.net/~jnc/tech/end_end.html

which is, I hope, both amusing and educational.

	Noel

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:56:33 -0700

> that I wrote a rant about it ("Will The Real 'End-End Principle' Please Stand

We have a lot work going on in the IETF today. What common architectural
principles or assumptions should the current work adhere to? Can the IAB
articulate that?

To quote rfc 1601:

       A major role of the IAB is long range planning.  The IAB is
      expected to "pay attention" to important long-term issues in the
      Internet, and to make sure that these issues are brought to the
      attention of the group(s) that are in a position to address them.
      It is also expected to play a role in assuring that the people
      responsible for evolving the Internet and its technology are aware
      of the essential elements of the Internet architecture.