Talk:End-to-end principle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Called "concept du bout-en-bout" in French (cf. http://www.freescape.eu.org/biblio/article.php3?id_article=136, just in case someone tries to translate it)
still to be translated for the french edition of the wikipedia...
The last paragraph may be misleading, as the paper linked specifically addresses why low latency, low error correction is better handled by an end to end design concept. Similarly the principle helps explain why some protocols, like multicast, have not been successfully deployed widely into the network, but tend to exist more in application devices.
I agree. The last paragraph is completely contradictory not only to the paper, but the rest of the article. If noone objects, I will change it.
Rrcjab 13:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Why the revert on 20 April 2008? New material was a little long, but had some good info. Also, old article seemed sort of one-sided about end-to-end goodness without it. Will re-add edited a bit unless there are objections. Re: adds by IP address 76.254.27.61
Yeah, why did the additional material get removed? Maybe the wording and formatting could be improved upon but it was good information with references from none other than David Clark, one of the authors of end-to-end, that balanced out this entry.
Why is someone suppressing relevant information from David D. Clark that clarifies the purpose of end-to-end? Is someone so fixed on the “dumb network” religion that they cannot accept the possibility of anything else?
I am alarmed by the amount of censorship on this post. This is Wikipedia and it's supposed to be neutral and objective. All relevant and well cited information should be presented in a Wikipedia entry and the article from David D. Clark clarifying the orginal scope of the end-to-end arguments should not be censored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.157.73.144 (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
