William Herrin wrote: > In case Nick's comment wasn't obvious enough:
Anything written in RFC1796 should be ignored, because RFC1796, an informational, not standard track, RFC, states so. It's so obvious. > RFC 1796: > It is a regrettably well spread misconception that publication as an > RFC provides some level of recognition. It does not, or at least not > any more than the publication in a regular journal." Your silliness, too, is appreciated. > End-to-end is generally described as a > layer 3 phenomenon. Read the original paper on it: http://groups.csail.mit.edu/ana/Publications/PubPDFs/End-to-End%20Arguments%20in%20System%20Design.pdf to find that the major example of the paper is file transfer, an application. > we are for practical, operational > purposes just shy of -never- talking about or using that kind of NAT. For practical operational purposes, it is enough that PORT command of ftp works transparently. Masataka Ohta
