RE: Terminology [Re: Some Comments on ID/Loc Separation Proposals]

["marcelo bagnulo" <mbagnulo@ing.uc3m.es>]

> > i guess there is nothing wrong with it, as long as we define it
> precisely.

Id oes appears in RFC1958, but i couldn't find any precise definition of
what an end-system is in there

>
> It is a word appears in RFC1958, editor of which is Brian.
>
> > could you provide a definition of what do you mean by end
> system? would it
> > be similar to JNC's endpoint definiton? or NSRG stack definition?
>
> As I searched reference of the RFC, "end point" seems to be an
> alternative wording of "end system" that if JNC is saying "endpoint"
> with the difinition of Saltzer's paper, that is fine.

Sorry but i couldn't find any definition of an end-system in Saltzer paper
"END-TO-END ARGUMENTS IN SYSTEM DESIGN
", actually i couldn't even find the end-system expression on the paper
What i did found is the end-point expression a couple of times:

Like in:
"The function in question can completely and correctly be implemented only
with the knowledge and help of the application standing at the end points of
the communication system. "
or in
"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
applied."

However i couldn't find any precise definition about endpoint, so i reffer
to JNC's endpoint docuemnte where several really nice definition of endpoint
can be found.

The definition are (so you don't have to look for it)

"To recap, however, an "endpoint" is, in order of increasing
formality:

    - one participant of an end-end communication
    - the fundamental agent of end-end communication
    - the entity which is performing a reliable communication on an
      end-end basis

    - a fatesharing region
    - a boundary drawn around a set of state and/or computations such
      that it lives or dies as a unit"

So, so far i like using endpoint because we have a definition for it and
IMHO it suit our needs.


>
> Forget NSRG.

Why?

stack is also well defined in the nsrg report as: ".  A stack is defined as
one participant or the process on one side of an end-to-end communication.
"

So, IMHO we have endpoint and stack well defined
I haven't been able to find a definition for end-system, so i would adhere
to your own argument and propose that we just use an existent already
defined term and not try to introduce a new definition for a term here.

However, i still don't understand the difference between an endpoint and a
stack (especially since the definition of stack is the same as the first
definition of an endpoint...)

Regards, marcelo


>
> 						Masataka Ohta
>
>