----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave CROCKER" <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh(_at_)joelhalpern(_dot_)com>
Cc: "IETF-Discussion" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf