IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Protocol Definition

Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net> Fri, 06 January 2012 03:17 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 2EFEB21F8829 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 19:17:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.821
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.821 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.222, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 EMAhCeNWSznO for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 19:17:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 845AF21F8824 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 19:17:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (adsl-67-127-55-53.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [67.127.55.53]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q063HIAM006780 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 5 Jan 2012 19:17:24 -0800
Message-ID: <4F0667B9.30604@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 19:17:13 -0800
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Subject: Re: Protocol Definition
References: <CAD7Ssm-Vetqmh3sxMWRiOHysp+XUaas7XuBkeg803mkTCsA0vQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.OSX.2.01.1201031756290.15402@rcdn-vpn-client-10-89-1-59.cisco.com> <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9042C5169@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il> <4F05B856.9050205@dcrocker.net> <3013.1325775717.451646@puncture> <4F05DA49.8050802@dcrocker.net> <4F05E3B8.5030305@mail-abuse.org> <3013.1325799709.099423@puncture> <4F06647E.2010905@dcrocker.net> <4F06662A.6070504@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F06662A.6070504@joelhalpern.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Thu, 05 Jan 2012 19:17:24 -0800 (PST)
Cc: IETF-Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 03:17:25 -0000

On 1/5/2012 7:10 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> I suspect that the "correct" choices depends upon how you look at the analogy.
> What seemed to me the closest analog to "process" would be the actual messages
> on the wires.


Nah.  A message on the wire is a single unit in an activity.  And taken on its 
own, in the host or on the wire, it's actually static.

It isn't the activity.  A process is an activity.  The challenge is a term for 
the /flow/ of messages.

It would be nice if it were a single word.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email