> I think this statement gives dangerously wide latitude for intermediate > systems to damage end-to-end-ness. It seems to me that a router should > only do something outside fundamental routing behaviour when this has > been explicitly approved, either through protocol negotiation or through > manual configuration, by sufficiently many affected parties that the > others can't tell that anything out of the ordinary is happening. Where do you think this leaves rewriting DSCPs at network boundaries? But anyway, the document is a statement of principle rather than a standard, and I'm not sure that it's possible to be absolute about these things when the interests of the user may be counter to the interests of the network administrator. That's not quite true - it is possible to be absolute. But I don't think it's likely to produce good results or progress on what really are some rather difficult and sometimes subtle questions about what happens between a sender and a receiver. Melinda