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

[Richard Bennett]

Don't get so emotional David, it doesn't make you look good. I never 
said that Cerf and Kahn stole CYCLADES without proper credit; I give 
examples of the credit they did give in order to prove the line of 
influence from CYCLADES to TCP/IP, and quoted Cerf on the help that 
Gerard LeLann provided to the Stanford team. I note that *your* paper 
doesn't cite Pouzin, which is something that certainly miffed at least 
one of your co-authors; my sentence is something like "the E2E Args 
authors didn't seem to have been aware of CYCLADES" which is based on a 
failure to reference.

I think it's unfortunate that the Internet community was already trying 
to erase Pouzin from history in 1981, when his contribution was so 
monumental. Let's give credit where it's due.

And as I've said already, I think the question of motivation and timing 
is interesting, and don't claim to know the answer. Seems like this is a 
good place to ask the question is all.

RB

David P. Reed wrote:
> Since the moderator did not find a problem with Bennett's posting, I 
> will request his leave to address Bennett's ouvre and in particular 
> this particular posting in a more direct manner, since he has walked 
> into this *technical* forum with a variety of outrageous claims 
> directed at the motives of me and my co-authors.
>
> On 10/23/2009 11:23 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
>> One of the more interesting unresolved questions about "End-to-End 
>> Args" is why it was written in the first place. Some people see it as 
>> a salvo in the ISO protocol wars, others as an attack in BBN's 
>> ARPANET, some as an attempt to criss the divide between engineering 
>> and policy, and there are probably other theories as well.
> Richard Bennett spends a fair amount of his writing imputing motives 
> to people, and then using those motives to somehow impugn their 
> credibility.
> The above paragraph is such an example.  (Please note that I am just 
> stating a fact about his writing style.  You can read the paper he 
> submitted for lots of examples.  He has also imputed that Vint Cerf 
> and Bob Kahn "stole" the ideas for the Internet from Pouzin without 
> proper credit.
>
> Now I don't know if he can read the minds of Jerry Saltzer, Dave 
> Clark, or myself in writing the original paper.   However the 
> paragraph quoted above is about the most ridiculous claim I have ever 
> heard.  We wrote the paper as an attempt to contribute to the art of 
> architecting the Internet, as I believe most of the people on this 
> list would understand.  However, Bennett has no shame.  He does, 
> however act as a troll.
>>
>>

-- 
Richard Bennett
Research Fellow
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
Washington, DC