[e2e] latest spate of cruft postings to e2e

[David P. Reed]

At 04:54 PM 11/12/2003, Wu-chang Feng wrote:
>IMO, TCP is the wrong layer to put it at.  It makes sense to have the 
>puzzle mechanism placed in a single, common layer (i.e. IP) rather than in 
>every individual transport and application protocol.

Well, this is a true inversion of the end-to-end argument...

I offer the opposite point.  TCP *is* the wrong layer to put it at, but for 
all the reasons that justify placing function at the edge of the network, 
rather than *in* the network, this mechanism should not be included in the 
core of the Internet.

PS: the point of invoking the end-to-end argument is not 
"religion".    Every time I mention it on this list I get flamed for that 
(incorrectly).   The point is that it is a "shorthand" for an argument that 
we could have in detail (and often do have in detail) on such proposals as 
this one.   Just like a subroutine call or a macro, the end-to-end argument 
reference means - read the d***ed paper, and then explain to me why this 
case is any different than all the other calls to push special-case 
functions into the network.