Re: the end-to-end name problem
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 line) This definition looks relevant. More relevant than the fifth. -zefram
Re: the end-to-end name problem
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 before we come to the one that is relevant. [2] [...] Semantics, at its worst, is something that can be argued about endlessly and pointlessly. But, I'm sure that many people in the IETF spend at least some time introducing the CONCEPT of end-to-end networking to novices. Novices, who know english but not the internet, may be confused. You're falling in your own trap here. The concept end is very fundamental and as such understood by everyone who can read and write. The dictionary just lists some ways in which the concept is applied. The fact that there are many applications shows the concept is fundamental, not that it is ambiguous, as you suggest. One alternative, used is edge networking and edge has much fewer definitions (only 6 for the noun) and the very FIRST one is the relevant one. I don't know about you, but end to end sounds like something that I might grasp intuitively, but edge to edge not so much. Also, edge is used for other stuff in the industry.
Re: the end-to-end name problem
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 long way from the simple word end in order to get to the definition that the IETF actually means. Wrong. It is the principle of not the IETF but the Internet. As you should recognize, most, if not all, of recent activity of IETF is against the principle, against which, the Internet is operated. Well organized standardization body such as IETF is an intermediate intelligent entity between end users and the Internet. That is, according to the principle, an intermediate intelligent entity of IETF MUST be removed. Masataka Ohta
Re: the end-to-end name problem
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. Likewise a dictionary is hardly a compelling substitute for going direct to the paper(s) in which the end to end principle has been articulated. cheers, gja -- Grenville Armitage http://caia.swin.edu.au I come from a LAN downunder.
Re: the end-to-end name problem
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 the end of the thread; they rode to the end of the line) This definition looks relevant. More relevant than the fifth. It's talking about something linear. simon
Re: the end-to-end name problem
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 that can be made to support the end-to-end principle (and potentially rename it) The network effect - whether it's Metcalfe's law, or Reed's law, or otherwise. The network effect, I think, is real. We can say that the network effect reinforces the upwards scaling of any network, by delivering much better than linear payback. Thus, it can be argued that the IDEAL network, is a network that scales upwards as quickly as possible, for as long as possible. Now, we can compose an argument that the most scalable network, is an end-to-end network, because it contains the simplest network core, and thus the most easy to scale network core. If that argument is valid, then we can say that the network effect supports the end-to-end principle. The neutral network argument - this is an argument that I have seen much more from the side of economics and law. I have seen the term used in relation to the internet by Lawrence Lessig [1]. Network neutrality argues that a network should be unbiased to any particular USER or USE. This would again lead to a principle network simplicity, since any kind of complexity would either (a) indicate an effort to control the network internals or (b) allow operators to impose greater control by taking advantage of the complexity. Fully describing the Internet requires much more sophisticated mathematical logic than simply declaring that it employs End-to-Endness, even though some of its parts do exhibit end-to-endness which is put to good use to make The Whole Internet work as it does. Perhaps the neutral network arguments in economics would help. simon So, we must not do away with End-to-Endness where it is used, or ignore all the rest of what makes the Internet what it is. Cheers...\Stef At 20:41 -0400 7/2/03, Keith Moore wrote: ] 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 undertanding. [SNIP]... -- www.simonwoodside.com -- 99% Devil, 1% Angel
Re: the end-to-end name problem
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 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] [...] Semantics, at its worst, is something that can be argued about endlessly and pointlessly. But, I'm sure that many people in the IETF spend at least some time introducing the CONCEPT of end-to-end networking to novices. Novices, who know english but not the internet, may be confused. You're falling in your own trap here. The concept end is very fundamental and as such understood by everyone who can read and write. The dictionary just lists some ways in which the concept is applied. The fact that there are many applications shows the concept is fundamental, not that it is ambiguous, as you suggest. The fact that the word end has so many meanings does imply that it's a common word. But people are aware that the popular can have many different meanings. The problem is that the meaning intended by End-To-End is not among the naïve meanings. It is a typical trap in naming things to choose a word that is misleading. It is often much simpler to choose a word that is totally made up or has no significance, like an acronym, or a combination of letters and numbers. Like TCP/IP, which has no naive meaning at all, and requires the naive person to dive in to make any conclusion. One alternative, used is edge networking and edge has much fewer definitions (only 6 for the noun) and the very FIRST one is the relevant one. I don't know about you, but end to end sounds like something that I might grasp intuitively, but edge to edge not so much. 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. simon -- www.simonwoodside.com -- 99% Devil, 1% Angel
Re: the end-to-end name problem
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 and gag anyone who utters the phrase end-to-end principle who hasn't read this excellent paper, easily available here: http://www.reed.com/Papers/EndtoEnd.html However, I will differ with you slightly, in that reading this paper will not necessarily produce 100% enlightenment. If you actually talk with the authors, you will discover that in the time since the paper was written, their understanding of what they were trying to get at has deepened (they now talk about a network end-end principle, which has important differenced with an application end-end principle), and in addition two of them (Reed and Clark) have since gone in slightly different directions in their thinking! I was discussing this all with them at length, but alas I don't have access to all my notes at this instant; perhaps I can produce another page containing some additional commentary on the end-end principle, in addition to: http://users.exis.net/~jnc/tech/end_end.html which discusses one popular misconception about the end-end principle. Noel
Re: the end-to-end name problem
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 broadly-similar-but-different-in-context concepts. It is an argument for naive people to recognize their lack of knowledge and go to the sources pertinent to the subject matter. Which, for the purposes of understanding packet networking and the internet, is NOT your local dictionary. gja
Re: the end-to-end name problem
] 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 undertanding.
