Re: Protocol Definition

"t.petch" <daedulus@btconnect.com> Sun, 08 January 2012 09:02 UTC

Return-Path: <daedulus@btconnect.com>
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 2892E21F847C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Jan 2012 01:02:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.894
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.894 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.705, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 smmeNaUFeIro for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Jan 2012 01:02:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.btconnect.com (c2bthomr09.btconnect.com [213.123.20.127]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A01B921F8469 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Jan 2012 01:02:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from host86-177-208-97.range86-177.btcentralplus.com (HELO pc6) ([86.177.208.97]) by c2bthomr09.btconnect.com with SMTP id FVV49316; Sun, 08 Jan 2012 09:02:26 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <000b01cccddb$fd4214c0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: "t.petch" <daedulus@btconnect.com>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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>
Subject: Re: Protocol Definition
Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2012 09:03:13 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Fair-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0303.4F095B9E.0065, actions=tag
X-Junkmail-Premium-Raw: score=7/50, refid=2.7.2:2012.1.8.73314:17:7.944, ip=86.177.208.97, rules=__HAS_MSGID, __OUTLOOK_MSGID_1, __SANE_MSGID, __TO_MALFORMED_2, __TO_NO_NAME, LEO_OBFU_SUBJ_RE, __BOUNCE_CHALLENGE_SUBJ, __BOUNCE_NDR_SUBJ_EXEMPT, __MIME_VERSION, __CT, CT_TP_8859_1, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN, __CTE, __HAS_X_PRIORITY, __HAS_MSMAIL_PRI, __HAS_X_MAILER, USER_AGENT_OE, __OUTLOOK_MUA_1, __USER_AGENT_MS_GENERIC, __ANY_URI, __URI_NO_PATH, BODY_SIZE_1700_1799, BODYTEXTP_SIZE_3000_LESS, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY, RDNS_GENERIC_POOLED, BODY_SIZE_5000_LESS, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC, __OUTLOOK_MUA, RDNS_SUSP, BODY_SIZE_2000_LESS, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS
X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2bthomr09.btconnect.com
X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0206.4F095BA6.00F1, ss=1, re=0.000, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2011-07-25 19:15:43, dmn=2011-05-27 18:58:46, mode=multiengine
X-Junkmail-IWF: false
Cc: IETF-Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Sun, 08 Jan 2012 09:02:43 -0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave CROCKER" <dhc@dcrocker.net>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Cc: "IETF-Discussion" <ietf@ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 4:17 AM

> 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.

I agree that a message is not the right word, but I think that protocol is:-)
'Protocol' started as the draft treaty that formed part of diplomatic exchanges,
ie it was the physical manifestation, not the abstract concept, so I would use
it in that sense for networking.

For the abstract side of networking, I would use the same terminology as I would
use for a 'program'.  After all, a network is just a single, multi-tasking
system in which the 'links' that tie together the multiple tasks have been
stretched a little and made manifest so I use the same constructs, the same
tools - eg state machines - for both.  In a multi-tasking operating system, you
will have post and wait and some such, in a network you have send and receive
and some such, same difference.

Tom Petch

>
> d/
> --
>
>    Dave Crocker
>    Brandenburg InternetWorking
>    bbiw.net
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
>