Scott Weeks wrote:
Yes, my apologies for no reference. Further, I have no URL to
point to as I read the book. (actual book; no e-something)
Here's something: http://pouzinsociety.org
as I can't find open access papers or something like that there,
let me stick to wikipedia.
Like the book, in the Wikipedia article you have to get through
or skip the first part. In the book, that's the first 5 or so
chapters. He just describes why, in his opinion, previous things
have failed and the way he does it turns a lot of folks off.
Another major misunderstanding of him is that he is not aware that
domain name with MX is application name and there are proposals
(though unnecessarily complicated) such as SRV to cover other
applications beyond SMTP. With SRV, non-default port numbers do not
have to be specified in URLs.
So, we already have application names of domain names and mapping
mechanism between names and addresses/port_numers of DNS.
E2E (end-to-end principle) is not relevant
That someone can not recognize relevance between something and the
E2E principle does not mean much.
IPv6 is/was a waste of time
True, but, the reason is because IPv4 Internet with DNS, TCP
and NAT is good enough.
That TCP identifies connections only by single source and destination
addresses is certainly a problem. But, the least painful solution
is to extend TCP to be able to identify connections by multiple
addresses.
Properly designed NAT can save IP addresses a lot still keeping the
E2E transparency.
The RINA's fundamental principles are that computer
networking is just Inter-Process Communication or IPC,
That is a too much computer centric view not very
applicable to communications involving human beings,
where the E2E argument must often be applied to human
beings (true end) behind applications (tentative end
in a computer).
Masataka Ohta
