Re: The End-To-End Internet (was Re: Blocking MX query)

[Masataka Ohta <mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp>]

William Herrin wrote:

> In case Nick's comment wasn't obvious enough:

Anything written in RFC1796 should be ignored, because RFC1796, an
informational, not standard track, RFC, states so.

It's so obvious.

> RFC 1796:

> It is a regrettably well spread misconception that publication as an
> RFC provides some level of recognition.  It does not, or at least not
> any more than the publication in a regular journal."

Your silliness, too, is appreciated.

> End-to-end is generally described as a
> layer 3 phenomenon.

Read the original paper on it:

http://groups.csail.mit.edu/ana/Publications/PubPDFs/End-to-End%20Arguments%20in%20System%20Design.pdf

to find that the major example of the paper is file transfer,
an application.

> we are for practical, operational
> purposes just shy of -never- talking about or using that kind of NAT.

For practical operational purposes, it is enough that PORT command
of ftp works transparently.

                                                Masataka Ohta