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
Harald did any of the technologies change because of issues that were
Harald discovered in the discussions that were needed to clarify the
Harald requirements and framework?
No.
Harald If no - why did it take any time at all to produce them?
Not sure what you mean, it always
Sure; but the reqs, framework, protocol specs, and applicability
statements were all ready 18 months ago. They could have been
submitted as a group. But we were told, first you need to submit
the first document, then a year or so later you can submit the
second. This is a very
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 and
high level bit of this reply:
from my perspective, the management of the PPVPN WG appears not to have
been optimal, to say the least. But I'm not willing to blame *all* the
delay and confusion on the IESG.
even if a WG feels abused by the IESG, or its AD, that's no excuse for a WG
not
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
L2VPN is not progress. It's the opposite.
users do want ways to bridge a layer two lan across the internet.
and this seems a legitimate desire that should be doable without
breaking anything. of course, this will drift into areas where we
know large l2 networks have problems. but, if properly
] L2VPN is not progress. It's the opposite.
]
] users do want ways to bridge a layer two lan across the internet.
yeah, I know. of course, there are some things users want to do that you simply
cannot make work well. not that we've let that stop us before...
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
At 05:44 PM 7/1/2003, Soohong Daniel Park wrote:
Hi all
I am searching for capwap Agenda
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/03jul/capwap.txt
Friday, July 18
OPS capwap Control And Provisioning of Wirelsss Acc. Point BOF
Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
Mobile Platform Lab,SAMSUNG Electronics
Andy
sorry to lose momentum on this thread, i got busy with something else briefly:
a dns resource lives where its parent NS RRs say it lives -- and not, as
you also suggest...
The hostport describes the authority that know the intended DNS
resource. An authority is useful even for
Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This view limit the usefulness of the URI, as it cannot be used to
refer to, e.g., not-yet delegated data. It can be useful to use DNS
URIs to denote DNS data in a delegation request, to indicate where the
new data will be placed, so it can be checked for
17 matches
Mail list logo
