IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Protocol Definition

Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net> Thu, 05 January 2012 17:13 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 6E2E121F8761 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 09:13:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.885
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.885 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.286, 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 cGbul04CXttr for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 09:13:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C90BA21F883F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 09:13:58 -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 q05HDoXk028909 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 5 Jan 2012 09:13:56 -0800
Message-ID: <4F05DA49.8050802@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 09:13:45 -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: Dave Cridland <dave@cridland.net>
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>
In-Reply-To: <3013.1325775717.451646@puncture>
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 09:13:56 -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: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 17:13:59 -0000

On 1/5/2012 7:01 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Thu Jan 5 14:48:54 2012, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>> 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.
>
> "Session"?


That's an appealing suggestion.  It is based on a 'state' existing between the 
two end points and it is above transport (so we don't have to worry about tcp vs 
udp vs...).

On the other hand, isn't a session able to have more than one "connection" and, 
therefore, possibly be running more than one protocol?

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email