[e2e] end of interest

[John Day]

>
>
>a paper that landed on my desk from the sigcomm 2009 rejection heap
>entitled "Endless Arguments in Systems Design" has some nice protocol
>fragments based around a new taxonomy of nodes in the graph
>
>rather than host + router + middle box,
>(or end- and intermediate- system as ISO used to term them)
>we only have 1 type of node (lets call it a synch)
>
>instead of 1-1, 1-n, and n-1 communication,
>we have 0-n and n-0 communication
>
>the zero indicates uncertainty about the eventual recipient
>(or the antideluvian originator)
>
>of course, a sequence of 0-n, n-0
>patterns can be constructed indicating cascades or swarms
>and possible aggregation and disaggregation of content.

Isn't this just a datagram or maybe a multicast datagram?

>
>interesting questions arise about
>reliability, flow, and congestion control
>in such a system - using the famous arguments
>in their truest sense from that old paper
>from which this august list may take its marching orders,
>is quite tricky...

This begins to sound like purposely constructing a convoluted 
situation so there is something to solve rather than simply adopting 
the straightforward solution.  Have we really come to this?

Perhaps Stoppard's Guildenstern (as opposed to Shakespeare's) would 
have an answer to that sort of question: how to do feedback with an 
uncertain source.  Lets see, "I am getting these feedback control 
messages but I am not sure where they are coming from . . ."  ;-)

But then that has to be more fun than solving the long standing 
problems that might require some hard thinking.  What was it that 
Ford Prefect said?

Take care,
John