This conversation is over [Re: Terminology [Re: Some Comments on ID/Loc Separation Proposals]]

[Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>]

It's my fault for mentioning the need to document our terminology,
but this thread serves no useful purpose for multi6 that I can see.
I suggest that those interested now continue it off-list.

Thanks
    Brian

marcelo bagnulo wrote:
> 
> > > 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
> >
> >

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM 

NEW ADDRESS <brc@zurich.ibm.com> PLEASE UPDATE ADDRESS BOOK