Subject: the end-to-end name problem

From: S Woodside <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 17:43:38 -0400

Hi,

End is an overloaded word. Overloaded words are great for politicians 
and poets because they can means so many different things. Some 
overloaded words (with many definitions) are spring (13), start (21), 
home (19), box (13), point (37), sign (18), hard (21), ... [0]

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]

1. end -- (either extremity of something that has length; "the end of 
the pier"; "she knotted the end of the thread"; "they rode to the end 
of the line")
2. end, ending -- (the point in time at which something ends; "the end 
of the year"; "the ending of warranty period")
3. end, last, final stage -- (the concluding parts of an event or 
occurrence; "the end was exciting"; "I had to miss the last of the 
movie")
4. goal, end -- (the state of affairs that a plan is intended to 
achieve and that (when achieved) terminates behavior intended to 
achieve it; "the ends justify the means")
5. end -- (a final part or section; "we have given it at the end of the 
section since it involves the calculus"; "Start at the beginning and go 
on until you come to the end")

We all know what the end-to-end principle means. It's (reportedly) THE 
guiding principle of the IETF, and THE guiding principle of IETF design 
decisions. The problem I am trying to demonstrate with this dictionary 
analysis, is that average non-indoctrinated person needs to travel a 
long way from the simple word "end" in order to get to the definition 
that the IETF actually means.

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.

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. [3]

1. edge, border -- (the boundary of a surface)

simon

[0] Counts are from WordNet [1]
[1] http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/~wn/
[2] http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn1.7.1?word=end&stage=1
[3] http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn1.7.1?word=edge&stage=1

--
www.simonwoodside.com -- 99% Devil, 1% Angel

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 20:41:21 -0400

] We all know what the end-to-end principle means. 

well, you'd think so - but these days I hear it used to justify all kinds of
things that have nothing to do with its original meaning.  I think it's 
becoming a religion - something that is accepted without question, and usually, 
without undertanding.

---

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 22:54:52 -0700

Quite so Keith! -- We have found something to agree on;-)...

End-to-Endness does not alone define the Internet.  

I expect we could safely say that TCP/IP is an End-to-End protocol pair, and 
though it is a critical part of the Internet, it is not "The Internet".

Fully describing the Internet requires much more sophisticated mathematical 
logic than simply declaring that it employs End-to-Endness, even though 
some of its parts do exhibit end-to-endness which is put to good use to make 
The Whole Internet work as it does.

So, we must not do away with End-to-Endness where it is used, or ignore all 
the rest of what makes the Internet what it is. 

Cheers...\Stef

>becoming a religion - something that is accepted without question, and usually, 

[SNIP]...

---

From: Zefram <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:26:22 +0100

S Woodside wrote:
>                                              we must walk down to the 

This definition looks relevant.  More relevant than the fifth.

-zefram

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 12:11:49 +0200

> 5th definition before we  come to the one that is relevant. [2]

[...]

> networking to novices. Novices, who know english but not the internet, 

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.

> 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.

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 19:44:02 +0859 ()

Simon;

> that the IETF actually means.

Wrong.

It is the principle of not the IETF but the Internet.

As you should recognize, most, if not all, of recent activity of
IETF is against the principle, against which, the Internet is
operated.

Well organized standardization body such as IETF is an intermediate
intelligent entity between end users and the Internet.

That is, according to the principle, an intermediate intelligent
entity of IETF MUST be removed.

						Masataka Ohta

---

From: grenville armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 23:48:41 +1000

S Woodside wrote:
	[..]
> Novices, who know english but not the internet,
> may be confused.

Forgive me for not thinking it insightful to observe that
technical terminologies are often confusing to novices.

This insight is hardly a compelling argument for gratuitous
word substitutions. Likewise a dictionary is hardly a compelling
substitute for going direct to the paper(s) in which the
end to end principle has been articulated.

cheers,
gja
-- 
Grenville Armitage
http://caia.swin.edu.au
I come from a LAN downunder.

---

From: S Woodside <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 14:20:20 -0400

> This definition looks relevant.  More relevant than the fifth.

It's talking about something linear.

simon

---

From: S Woodside <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:50:18 -0400

> though it is a critical part of the Internet, it is not "The Internet".

It isn't? Then what is "the internet" ?

There are at least two other network arguments that can be made to 
support the end-to-end principle (and potentially rename it)

The network effect - whether it's Metcalfe's law, or Reed's law, or 
otherwise. The network effect, I think, is real. We can say that the 
network effect reinforces the upwards scaling of any network, by 
delivering much better than linear payback. Thus, it can be argued that 
the IDEAL network, is a network that scales upwards as quickly as 
possible, for as long as possible. Now, we can compose an argument that 
the most scalable network, is an end-to-end network, because it 
contains the simplest network core, and thus the most easy to scale 
network core. If that argument is valid, then we can say that the 
network effect supports the end-to-end principle.

The neutral network argument - this is an argument that I have seen 
much more from the side of economics and law. I have seen the term used 
in relation to the internet by Lawrence Lessig [1]. Network neutrality 
argues that a network should be unbiased to any particular USER or USE. 
This would again lead to a principle network simplicity, since any kind 
of complexity would either (a) indicate an effort to control the 
network internals or (b) allow operators to impose greater control by 
taking advantage of the complexity.

> The Whole Internet work as it does.

Perhaps the neutral network arguments in economics would help.

simon

---

From: S Woodside <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 15:55:15 -0400

On Thursday, July 3, 2003, at 06:11  AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

>> 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]
>
> [...]
>
>> networking to novices. Novices, who know english but not the 
>> internet, may be confused.
>

The fact that the word "end" has so many meanings does imply that it's 
a common word. But people are aware that the popular can have many 
different meanings. The problem is that the meaning intended by 
End-To-End is not among the naïve meanings. It is a typical trap in 
naming things to choose a word that is misleading. It is often much 
simpler to choose a word that is totally made up or has no 
significance, like an acronym, or a combination of letters and numbers. 
Like TCP/IP, which has no naive meaning at all, and requires the naive 
person to dive in to make any conclusion.

> might grasp intuitively, but "edge to edge" not so much.

That is, perhaps, a good thing, since I think that most naive people 
will THINK that they intuitively grasp what end-to-end means, but they 
are wrong.

simon

---

From: grenville armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 08:56:33 +1000

S Woodside wrote:
	[..]
> will THINK that they intuitively grasp what end-to-end means, but they

Most naive people are wrong about many things, but this is not an argument
for making up new words to express broadly-similar-but-different-in-context
concepts. It is an argument for naive people to recognize their lack
of knowledge and go to the sources pertinent to the subject matter.
Which, for the purposes of understanding packet networking and "the
internet", is NOT your local dictionary.

gja