Re: Protocol and format (Was: New Approach For Discussing IPv10.

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 9:26 AM Joseph Touch <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> > On Apr 19, 2021, at 1:50 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 11:42:28PM -0400,
> > Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]> wrote
> > a message of 100 lines which said:
> >
> >>> You have described the messages only, which alone has never been
> >>> enough to define a protocol.
> >>
> >> Usually that is the case. But IP is a rather peculiar
> >> exception. There is lots of stuff above and lots of stuff below and
> >> there is the routing layer out to the side. But what is there to the
> >> packet layer except the packet format
> >
> > I agree with you (that IP does not really fit the traditional
> > description of a "protocol", for instance it does not have a state
> > machine, explicit or implicit) but the same could be said for
> > Ethernet, which was a protocol once but now is only a format.
>
> There is a state machine; most of it is degenerate*, but there’s
> definitely state associated with at least fragmentation reassembly.
>
> *the core state is quite complex in its rules, i.e.,
>         net in -> net out includes hop count processing, check for
> destination accept, ECN marking, DSCP prioritization, and HBH extension
> processing
>         net in -> user out includes ECN relay to transport, E2E extension
> processing including reassembly
>         user in -> net out includes source address determination, DSCP and
> ECN setting, E2E extension processing including fragmentation
>
> And don’t forget the receipt and generation of ICMPs, RAs, NDs, etc.
>
>

+1

Behcet

> Joe
>
>