Subject: [iucg] IETF main: DNSSEC is NOT secure end to end

From: Marie-France Berny <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 10:12:02 +0200

The refered thread at the IETF rises the question of the end to end issue
when you consider the pseudonetwork layer.  Some of the discussions seem
appropriate. I would suggest to better phrase the text saying that the end
is extended to the top of the pile, and then to talk of "top to top"
service, over the network end to end.MFBerny

---

From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:10:35 +0200

At 10:12 09/06/2009, Marie-France Berny wrote:
>The refered thread at the IETF rises the question of the end to end 
>issue when you consider the pseudonetwork layer.  Some of the 
>discussions seem appropriate. I would suggest to better phrase the 
>text saying that the end is extended to the top of the pile, and 
>then to talk of "top to top" service, over the network end to end.
>MFBerny

I think you are right. We could then stabilise our wording as :

- hop to hop from machine to machine
- plug to plug for telecoms
- end to end from Internet edge to internet edge
- top to top from Interplus' user plug
- brain to brain between physical users (knowledge)
- mind to mind between intellectual users (noetics, compehension)

jfc