Subject: Re: [rrg] Terminology

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 18:50:09 -0500 (EST)

> From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>

    > I don't find the "CES" or "CEE" terms to be very meaningful, in that
    > they don't really inform one about the important properties of any
    > proposal.

{Visualize Noel falling off chair...}

Say what?

In deployment terms (which also has a big effect on the economics), it's very
important, because it tells you whether one needs to modify hosts or not. You
may not think that's a significant barrier, but I (and probably others) don't
agree.

Even in architectural terms, it's important: whether some function is
implemented in 'the network' or 'the edge' is a fairly significant decision in
architectural terms - and it is just that choice that the CES/CEE choice
highlights.

Yes, CES/CEE is not the only, or most, significant architectural axis, but
it's surely not one I would characterize as 'not really ... important'.

	Noel

---

From: RJ Atkinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 08:33:57 -0500

On 03  Feb 2010, at 18:50 , Noel Chiappa wrote:
> ...[the term CEE/CES] tells you whether one needs to modify hosts or not.

I don't believe that is necessarily true.  Others seem to agree with me.

If one means precisely that "host changes are required", then one ought to say 
"host changes are required", rather than invent confusing new terminology.

Yours,

Ran

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 15:02:40 +0100

> "host changes are required", rather than invent confusing new terminology.

Precisely so.  Or, you could view it as a way to scare off those of us
who have day jobs.

Eliot