S Woodside wrote:
we must walk down to the
5th definition before we come to the one that is relevant. [2]
1. end -- (either extremity of something that has length; the end of
the pier; she knotted the end of the thread; they rode to the end
of the
On woensdag, jul 2, 2003, at 23:43 Europe/Amsterdam, S Woodside wrote:
I think there's a problem with the name end-to-end. End is a word
with a lot of definitions: for example wordnet [1] lists 14 senses for
the noun end and 4 more for the verb. Indeed, we must walk down to the
5th definition
Simon;
We all know what the end-to-end principle means. It's (reportedly) THE
guiding principle of the IETF, and THE guiding principle of IETF design
decisions. The problem I am trying to demonstrate with this dictionary
analysis, is that average non-indoctrinated person needs to travel a
S Woodside wrote:
[..]
Novices, who know english but not the internet,
may be confused.
Forgive me for not thinking it insightful to observe that
technical terminologies are often confusing to novices.
This insight is hardly a compelling argument for gratuitous
word substitutions.
On Thursday, July 3, 2003, at 05:26 AM, Zefram wrote:
S Woodside wrote:
we must walk down to the
5th definition before we come to the one that is relevant. [2]
1. end -- (either extremity of something that has length; the end of
the pier; she knotted
On Thursday, July 3, 2003, at 01:54 AM, Einar Stefferud wrote:
I expect we could safely say that TCP/IP is an End-to-End protocol
pair, and
though it is a critical part of the Internet, it is not The Internet.
It isn't? Then what is the internet ?
There are at least two other network arguments
On Thursday, July 3, 2003, at 06:11 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On woensdag, jul 2, 2003, at 23:43 Europe/Amsterdam, S Woodside wrote:
I think there's a problem with the name end-to-end. End is a word
with a lot of definitions: for example wordnet [1] lists 14 senses
for the noun end
From: grenville armitage [EMAIL PROTECTED]
a dictionary is hardly a compelling substitute for going direct to the
paper(s) in which the end to end principle has been articulated.
I couldn't agree with your suggestion more; were I Tsar of the Internet, I'd
make it a rule to bind
S Woodside wrote:
[..]
That is, perhaps, a good thing, since I think that most naive people
will THINK that they intuitively grasp what end-to-end means, but they
are wrong.
Most naive people are wrong about many things, but this is not an argument
for making up new words to express
a problem with the name end-to-end. End is a word
with a lot of definitions: for example wordnet [1] lists 14 senses for
the noun end and 4 more for the verb. Indeed, we must walk down to the
5th definition before we come to the one that is relevant. [2]
1. end -- (either extremity of something
] We all know what the end-to-end principle means.
well, you'd think so - but these days I hear it used to justify all kinds of
things that have nothing to do with its original meaning. I think it's
becoming a religion - something that is accepted without question, and usually,
without
11 matches
Mail list logo
