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

[Jon Crowcroft]

one of the problems is language evolution/erosion

for some people 
an end-to-end _argument_
is an argument for everything 
being in the end point
as opposed to the more 
nuanced
meaning of the aforesaid paper(s)
in which it is a 
set of dynamic debates
which set a tension
between whether you put something
in the end,
in the end,
or not 
(i.e. in the intermediate).

the "argument" then is not a polemic
but a method or process (or dialectic)
that can and should be 
dynamically reapplied
as technology and the environment
evolve.

In missive <20091023165835.1D4E66BE5F8 at mercury.lcs.mit.edu>, Noel Chia
ppa typed:

 >>    > From: Dave CROCKER <dhc2 at dcrocker.net>
 >>
 >>    > My sense of things is that the term is not actually defined all that
 >>    > concretely or consistently
 >>
 >>Sorry, I disagree. The original Saltzer/Clark/Reed paper does a pretty
 >>good job, I think - as well as one can do with a broad architectural
 >>concept, which is inherently not as susceptible to precise definition as,
 >>say, an algorithm.
 >>
 >>    > this has made it difficult to use the term constructively.
 >>
 >>No, people being bozos and not using the term _as it wss originally
 >>defined_ are what has made its use problematic.
 >>
 >>	Noel

 cheers

   jon