Joe Touch wrote: > Architectures aren't fixed things; they can evolve, e.g., you can go > from one stable architecture to another, more capable one by deliberate > extension. Surely, something you call architectures might evolve. So what? > The real heart of the Internet is an architecture. Depending on what you call "architecture", may be or may be not. > The E2E principle and > narrow waist are consequences of that architecture. Completely wrong. Apparently, you haven't read the paper, which does not depend on specific structure/architecture of the Internet with a very old example of CTSS, reference to which was written in 1963, and another old example of telephone networking, reference to which was written in 1964. As the paper is titled END-TO-END ARGUMENTS IN SYSTEM DESIGN and its abstract begins with the following statement: This paper presents a design principle that helps guide placement of functions among the modules of a distributed computer system. the argument is applicable to system design in general and, especially, all the distributed computer systems including preliminary and *EVOLVED* ones. Moreover, the paper does not say anything about architecture of networking (though the paper briefly mentions CPU architecture of RISC). So, while you can call something an end to end architecture and say it can evolve, it has nothing to do with the applicability of the principle, the end to end argument, to system designs with or without the evolved architecture. With the argument, it can be concluded that approaches presumed by SEMI2015 is incomplete and incorrect. Masataka Ohta