Re: Protocol Definition
Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Mon, 18 June 2012 10:31 UTC
Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 228DA21F8539 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 03:31:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.375
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.375 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.344, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wV7O54yS19vR for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 03:31:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B268521F8525 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 03:31:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=test; t=1340015458; bh=4IFyxYTLae7Z1lGhb6t0qRT+5IDNrqe0TasyUolCtls=; l=1764; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=ded4mMU1loYAPMjoPnFriP/1IsvxJv0e7B3BZ4Ol6uq/zXOxvYjTlo8qXkrtcVivH XRqTTrjz9R22nOvfkhFoFXWe3ahAExBfgwgs8coH9apRJR6FfmbKQJTj24QljvOGTb vLEEEUti8bS6S1UW4wnkbbp36OsU3k0LGtNnJpkY=
Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 515, TLS: TLS1.0,256bits,RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 12:30:58 +0200 id 00000000005DC045.000000004FDF0362.000040B7
Message-ID: <4FDF0362.3050101@tana.it>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 12:30:58 +0200
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Protocol Definition
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 10:31:08 -0000
On 5 Jan 2012, todd glassey <tglassey@earthlink.net> wrote > On 1/5/2012 6:48 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: >> >> (One can quibble about the difference between algorithm and >> program. An algorithm is a component of a program. > > The program is the code-based implementation of the alg? > >> The distinction is relevant here because a protocol is typically >> a complete mechanism rather than being a component of the >> mechanisms. > > I.e. "A complete method of doing something"... I noticed no disagreement between "method" and "mechanism", at the time. In retrospect, those two terms might seem to allude to a different depth of semantic explanations. Rereading that thread, I find that the same ambiguity holds for algorithm descriptions: one can give a full description (or coding) of, say, sqrt, without actually saying that the square of the result will match its argument up to some rounding error. The specification does not have to relate the underlying mathematical abstraction. Protocol specifications, especially when dealing with policies, do not have to describe the exact meaning of the relevant tokens. To do that would often look like mandating a state or a reaction, neither of which is needed to ensure interoperability. In fact, the protocol just has to ensure that a policy can be transmitted correctly. Many would rather leave a policy token underspecified than get involved in its details. In that respect, a protocol is not a complete method. The "upper layer", where policies and politics are dealt with, seems to be too fuzzy to be specified. I think this limitation is consistent with the etymological meaning of the term, that refers to forms of conduct that don't betray intentions. Is that right?
- Protocol Definition Kaushal Shriyan
- Re: Protocol Definition Ole Jacobsen
- RE: Protocol Definition Yaakov Stein
- Re: Protocol Definition Dave CROCKER
- Re: Protocol Definition Dave Cridland
- Re: Protocol Definition Dave CROCKER
- Re: Protocol Definition John C Klensin
- Re: Protocol Definition todd glassey
- Re: Protocol Definition Dave CROCKER
- Re: Protocol Definition Douglas Otis
- Re: Protocol Definition Dave Cridland
- Re: Protocol Definition Fernando Gont
- Re: Protocol Definition Dave CROCKER
- Re: Protocol Definition Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Protocol Definition Dave CROCKER
- RE: Protocol Definition Yaakov Stein
- RE: Protocol Definition John Day
- Re: Protocol Definition t.petch
- Re: Protocol Definition John Day
- Re: Protocol Definition Martin Sustrik
- Re: Protocol Definition John Day
- Re: Protocol Definition Martin Sustrik
- Re: Protocol Definition John Day
- Re: Protocol Definition pankaj kumar
- Re: Protocol Definition Dave CROCKER
- Re: Protocol Definition John Day
- RE: Protocol Definition Yaakov Stein
- RE: Protocol Definition John Day
- Re: Protocol Definition Joe Touch
- Re: Protocol Definition Alessandro Vesely
- Re: Protocol Definition Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: Protocol Definition Joe Touch
- Re: Protocol Definition Alessandro Vesely
- Re: Protocol Definition Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: Protocol Definition Randy Bush
- Re: Protocol Definition Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: Protocol Definition Joel jaeggli
- Re: Protocol Definition Melinda Shore
- Re: Protocol Definition Tony Finch
- Re: Protocol Definition Donald Eastlake
- Re: Protocol Definition tglassey