Masataka-san Please learn to express your opinions in a manner that is appropriate to a professional forum rather than a bar room brawl. You are entitled to your opinion but not to converse in the abusive and insulting manner you have chosen to use if you wish to receive a reply. The link you gave was to a paywalled version of the paper. I did not bother to read the authors once I discovered it was paywalled. On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 1:22 AM, Masataka Ohta<mohta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > >> I was at a dinner with Dave Clarke last week. Those who invoke his >> name in these arguments rarely seem to have read his paper on the end >> to end principle IN NETWORKING. > > Which paper is, are you saying, "his paper"? The original one or > latter one (published in 2001) which includes discussion on PKI, > which I referred in previous mails. > > As you say "IN NETWORKING", I'm afraid you haven't read his original > paper "END-TO-END ARGUMENTS IN SYSTEM DESIGN", which is on "system > design" in general and not necessarily "in networking". For example, > in the original paper, RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) is > given as an example of end to end design. > >> Depending on your level of abstraction you choose to work at you can >> argue that anything is an end. > > Apparently, he taught you basic points in his original paper > but not beyond. > > It is discussed in the original paper that: > > Identifying the ends > Using the end-to-end argument sometimes requires subtlety > of analysis of application requirements. > one must use some care to identify the end points to which > the argument should be applied. > > Beyond the original paper, the application of the end to end > argument to PKI including DNSSEC is discussed in his latter > paper in 2001 with PROPERLY IDENTIFIED "end points". In the > paper, certificate authorities are identified to be third > parties. > > With the discussion, there is no point denying "DNSSEC is NOT > secure end to end". > >> It would be nice if the paper was available in unencumbered form. > > Both of the papers are freely downloadable. > > The original paper: > > http://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/endtoend/endtoend.pdf > > The paper in 2001: > > http://www.csd.uoc.gr/~hy558/papers/Rethinking_2001.pdf > > You should have read both of them to make the dinner more valuable. > >> Publication in ACM does not help anything but the author's academic >> career. > > I gave a link to the paper in 2001 through ACM because it has DOI, > assuming that anyone can use search engines and that all the people > who talks about the end to end principle should have read the > original paper in advance. > > Masataka Ohta > > -- -- New Website: http://hallambaker.com/ View Quantum of Stupid podcasts, Tuesday and Thursday each week, http://quantumofstupid.com/ _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf