At 6:39 -0800 2012/01/09, Dave CROCKER wrote:
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.
Agreed.
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.
Well, pretty close. There is a copious literature on the formal
description and verification of protocols beginning in the 70s.
There are two major issues that is not normally found in defining a
"program": 1) is specifying the asynchrony, ensuring no races, and
2) keeping the specification implementation independent. One does
not want the specification to unnecessarily constrain the
implementation strategy. The general rule is Day's First Rule of
Architecture: Anything you can get away with that is undetectable
from the outside is legal. Or when it comes to implementation sleaze
the architecture.
We have seen the problems of code monoculture or just assuming the
other guys knew how to code.
Take care,
John
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf