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 before we come to the one that is relevant. [2]
[...]
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.
One alternative, used is "edge networking" and edge has much fewer
definitions (only 6 for the noun) and the very FIRST one is the
relevant one.
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. Also, "edge"
is used for other stuff in the industry.