[e2e] end-to-end -ness defeats content controls

[George Michaelson]

I just wrote a very wanky paper which is certain to be rejected but the
central proposition was that end-to-end -ness and some related concepts
like encapsulation of protocols make attempts at content control completely
specious.

Would fellow e2e-ers feel I overstepped the mark? It seemed like a small
line to me:

	1) encapsulation as a generalized concept implies that if you
   	   can achieve end-to-end exchange of data, you can overlay an
	   unconstrained IP tunnel at costs in speed and bandwidth.

	2) port bindings for service are meaningless tools to constrain
	   dataflow, the trivial proof is to edit /etc/services and inetd.conf
	   and run SMTP on shifted ports. Or, to run some other service on 25.

		[yes, it defeats global governance, but in context for
		 a smaller n-way community of interest it works. I could
		 have said BXXP or other multiplexing could also apply so
	         port 25 is SMTP if helo works, but falls back to other stuff]

	3) convergeance is commoditizing the edge-device to include IP anyway

	4) because any device can be edge, core, route, server or client the
	   idea a hierarchy of control exists is broken.

Am I wide of mark here? I felt that e2e was a good over-arching design goal
which was so fundamental in the Internet that it acted as a general principle
to bind these discrete ideas into a commonality of 'you can't constrain it'
type rules. 

Do we have a canonical reference to end-to-end I can cite?

cheers
	-George
--
George Michaelson       |  APNIC
Email: ggm at apnic.net    |  PO Box 2131 Milton QLD 4064
Phone: +61 7 3367 0490  |  Australia
  Fax: +61 7 3367 0482  |  http://www.apnic.net