[e2e] Protocols breaking the end-to-end argument

[Dave CROCKER]

David P. Reed wrote:
> I'd reframe the statement, just because I would actually like the term 
> "end-to-end argument" to continue to mean what we defined it to mean, 
> rather than what some people have extended it to mean.


Interesting.  My sense of things is that the term is not actually defined all 
that concretely or consistently and that this has made it difficult to use the 
term constructively.

Can you or anyone else point to a definition that

    a) gives meaningful technical definition of "end to end", sufficient to make 
differential conformance assessments reasonable.

    b) provide any basis for believing that that definition has broad use within 
the technical community?

Absent the ability to satisfy this query, we ought to consider an effort to move 
towards being able to.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net