IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Protocol Definition

Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net> Thu, 05 January 2012 14:49 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 A2D9521F87B3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 06:49:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, 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 ZjLP6LdR-4d0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 06:49:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12E6621F8716 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 06:49:05 -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 q05EmwMw026295 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 06:49:04 -0800
Message-ID: <4F05B856.9050205@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 06:48:54 -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: ietf@ietf.org
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>
In-Reply-To: <07F7D7DED63154409F13298786A2ADC9042C5169@EXRAD5.ad.rad.co.il>
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 06:49:04 -0800 (PST)
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: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 14:49:05 -0000

On 1/4/2012 2:07 AM, Yaakov Stein wrote:
> A protocol is to communications what an algorithm is to computation.


The mantra that I was taught many years ago was that a process is a program in 
execution.  A program is the instructions.  That seems compatible with the above 
observations.

(One can quibble about the difference between algorithm and program.  An 
algorithm is a component of a program.  The distinction is relevant here because 
a protocol is typically a complete mechanism rather than being a component of 
the mechanisms.  On the other hand, an entire Internet service might comprise 
multiple protocols.)


My question is:

      If protocol corresponds with program or algorithm, then what is the 
communications term that corresponds to process?

      It's tempting to say "port number", but that doesn't seem very satisfying.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email