IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Protocol Definition

Dave CROCKER <dhc@dcrocker.net> Mon, 09 January 2012 14:39 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 0AAA821F8592 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 06:39:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.395
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.395 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.396, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, 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 Fc+YflvNxzNi for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 06:39:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E359B21F8587 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Jan 2012 06:39:44 -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 q09EdWn7004314 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 9 Jan 2012 06:39:37 -0800
Message-ID: <4F0AFC1C.1060905@dcrocker.net>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 06:39:24 -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: "t.petch" <daedulus@btconnect.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> <4F0667B9.30604@dcrocker.net> <000b01cccddb$fd4214c0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
In-Reply-To: <000b01cccddb$fd4214c0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
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]); Mon, 09 Jan 2012 06:39:38 -0800 (PST)
Cc: dcrocker@bbiw.net, 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: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 14:39:49 -0000

On 1/8/2012 12:03 AM, t.petch wrote:
> I agree that a message is not the right word, but I think that protocol is:-)

There is a specific distinction that is intended by having two different words: 
  description vs. operation.

A program is a description of behavior.  A process is the operation of the 
description.  It is the behavioral performance.

Protocol refers to the description of an interaction.  The term being explored 
is for the operation of that description. It is the interaction.


> For the abstract side of networking, I would use the same terminology as I would
> use for a 'program'.

If you mean that you would say 'process' for both, that does have the appeal of 
familiarity, but the problem of overloading.  Worse, I'd fear that it encourages 
a failure to appreciate the differences between networking architecture and 
software implementation.  Since this failure is quite prevalent, I suggest we 
not encourage it.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email