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  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. >> 
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
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
www.simonwoodside.com -- 99% Devil, 1% Angel