The bigger point I was making was that we are not a religious organization. We
do not have sacred texts, we do not proceed by performing exegesis.
In particular note: "Thus the end-to-end argument is not an absolute rule, but
rather a guideline that helps in application and protocol design analysis; one
must use some care to identify the end points to which the argument should be
I don't think that I am misrepresenting the paper when I sumarize it as saying
'keep the complexity out of the network core'. As I read the paper that is at
the very heart of the argument.
If you like s/complexity/as much functionality as you can/
This is a core principle in the design of XKMS, SAML and other Web Service
based protocols. The endpoints of a trust relationship are people and
organizations, not machines. As Adi Shamir put it at this years RSA conference
'Alice and Bob are not Turing machines'.
The real world is complex: we can't eliminate the complexity but we can choose
where we manage it.
The paper considers two options, complexity at the end points vs complexity in
the network. The idea of the network edge as being a third option is not really
considered as an alternative.
End to end is not the same thing as host to host.
From: John Kristoff [mailto:jtk(_at_)northwestern(_dot_)edu]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 7:20 PM
Responding to something just overheard in the plenary...
No, it's not about complexity, but nor is it about
robustness. It's about "functionality" and where to place
it. A simple word search should help highlight this point.
I'm a bit surprised I'm contradicting some who I have a great
deal of respect and are most assuredly much more well known
within the IETF than I. It either signals something
fundamentally wrong with the IETF or, much more likely, me. :-)
Perhaps all participants can commit to a twice careful read
of the original paper that gets referred to so much before
the next IETF?
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list