Nick Hilliard wrote:
If you can't accept the following principle of the End to End
argument:
The function in question can completely and correctly be
implemented only with the knowledge and help of the
application standing at the end points of the
communication system.
this is a straw man argument.
The text is in the original paper on the principle:
End-To-End Arguments in System Design
J. H. SALTZER, D. P. REED, and D. D. CLARK
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/ana/Publications/PubPDFs/End-to-End%20Arguments%20in%20System%20Design.pdf
E2E works regardless of the current
network-based multihoming mechanism or the proposals in
draft-ohta-e2e-multihoming.
As the next sentence of the paper is:
Therefore, providing that questioned function as a feature
of the communication system itself is not possible
which means:
Therefore, providing multihoming as a feature
of the communication system itself is not possible
you are wrong.
Your proposal is almost a text-book case of RFC1925, section 6:
FYI, the rfc was published on 1 April.
I.e. instead of having network level complexity, you're proposing to
shift the problem to maintaining both state and network into the host
level. No doubt it has some benefits, but this comes at the cost of
bringing dfz complexity down to the host and all the consequent support,
scaling and management headaches associated with that. I.e. the problem
space shifts, but is not solved.
So, you are joking, aren't you?
> feel free to keep using POTS not smart phones.
Thank you, I certainly will. Conversely, please feel free to use
arguments instead of rhetoric.
Instead of rhetoric, I argue by quoting from papers, hopefully not
published on 1 April, validity of which is well recognized.
Masataka Ohta
