[e2e] Port numbers, SRV records or...?

[John Day]

At 6:49 -0700 2006/08/17, Joe Touch wrote:
>John Day wrote:
>...
>>  What I find really remarkable is the inability of current researchers to
>>  see beyond what is there.  It is interesting that they are so focused on
>>  current developments that they are unable to see beyond them.
>
>Yeah, so far all they've come up with is:
>
>- the web (addressing at the app layer)
>- DHTs (hash-based addressing)
>- overlays (arbitrary addressing using the Internet as a link layer)

The web on the one hand is just a souped up version of Englebart's 
NLS.  Addressing within an application doesn't count.

DHTs- How to turn one flat address space into another flat address 
space.  I see you haven't seen through this one yet.

Overlays - an interesting thought but for now really just trying to 
paper over the real problems.

>It's sad that they haven't gotten beyond the Internet's original vision
>of email and remote login. Oh well, back to the drawing board ;-)
>
>As to whether we are scientists or technicians, that depends on your
>definition. The last time I checked, scientists created theories about
>reality and validated them via observation and iteration. There are

That is only part of it.  Remember Newton's Regulae Philosphandi 
(guidelines): (in part) Theory should be the fewest number of 
concepts to cover the space.

This is why I said engineers are infatuated with creating 
differences, while scientists are infatuated with finding 
similarities.  I don't see much simplification in the Internet over 
the last 35 years.  In fact, what I see are complexities heaped on 
complexity.

>plenty of those out there; in a sense, the Internet is just a theory
>about how to network, and the iterations are about resolving the theory

Ahhh, now I see, this is the root of the problem.  The Internet is 
not a theory.  It is a very specific engineering example.

>with new uses and ideas - including indirection, virtualization,
>separating process (function) from location from communication
>association - which is how this discussion originated.  It's in the
>abstraction of these ideas that there is science.

You are getting closer.

Take care,
John