Subject: Re: Protocol Definition

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 15:18:02 +0200

IMO the important issue in any definition is to include how the IETF
defines protocol,
this may be find in some RFCs :)

The IP is the main protocol, and all protocols in IETF are based on IP
and Internet.

AB
++++

On 5 Jan 2012, todd glassey <tglassey at earthlink.net> wrote
> On 1/5/2012 6:48 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>>
>> (One can quibble about the difference between algorithm and
>> program. An algorithm is a component of a program.
>
> The program is the code-based implementation of the alg?
>
>> The distinction is relevant here because a protocol is typically
>> a complete mechanism rather than being a component of the
>> mechanisms.
>
> I.e. "A complete method of doing something"...

I noticed no disagreement between "method" and "mechanism", at the
time.  In retrospect, those two terms might seem to allude to a
different depth of semantic explanations.  Rereading that thread, I
find that the same ambiguity holds for algorithm descriptions:  one
can give a full description (or coding) of, say, sqrt, without
actually saying that the square of the result will match its argument
up to some rounding error.  The specification does not have to relate
the underlying mathematical abstraction.

Protocol specifications, especially when dealing with policies, do not
have to describe the exact meaning of the relevant tokens.  To do that
would often look like mandating a state or a reaction, neither of
which is needed to ensure interoperability.  In fact, the protocol
just has to ensure that a policy can be transmitted correctly.  Many
would rather leave a policy token underspecified than get involved in
its details.

In that respect, a protocol is not a complete method.  The "upper
layer", where policies and politics are dealt with, seems to be too
fuzzy to be specified.  I think this limitation is consistent with the
etymological meaning of the term, that refers to forms of conduct that
don't betray intentions.  Is that right?

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:00:15 +0200

I got help from a friend, to amend the definition statement to:

All protocols in IETF are based on the Internet or/and the IP.

AB
++++
<Defining any protocol has to consider somehow it's networks>

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:42:42 -1000

> All protocols in IETF are based on the Internet or/and the IP.

what a laugh.  try, for example,

   RFC 826

randy

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 05:57:49 +0200

>> All protocols in IETF are based on the Internet or/and the IP.

read in first page

[The purpose of this RFC is to present a method of Converting
Protocol Addresses (e.g., IP addresses) to Local Network
Addresses (e.g., Ethernet addresses). This is a issue of general
concern in the ARPA Internet community at this time. The
method proposed here is presented for your consideration and
comment. This is not the specification of a Internet Standard.]

---

From: Joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:16:28 -0700

> comment. This is not the specification of a Internet Standard.]

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5921

   This document specifies an architectural framework for the
   application of Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) to the
   construction of packet-switched transport networks.  It describes a
   common set of protocol functions -- the MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-
   TP) -- that supports the operational models and capabilities typical
   of such networks, including signaled or explicitly provisioned
   bidirectional connection-oriented paths, protection and restoration
   mechanisms, comprehensive Operations, Administration, and Maintenance
   (OAM) functions, and network operation in the absence of a dynamic
   control plane or IP forwarding support.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 21:24:29 -0800

On 6/21/12 9:16 PM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
>> On 6/22/12, Randy Bush<[email-masked]>  wrote:

[ ... ]

> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5921

I dunno - once you throw "based on the Internet" in there pretty
much anything goes.  Which is not to say that I think his definition
of "protocol" is helpful, since it does not appear to actually *be*
a definition.

But anyway, I was surprised by some of things for which I haven't
been able to find a definition in IETF documents - for example,
"state," although that's an extremely difficult term for which to do
an exhaustive search and it's very likely out there but hard to find.

Melinda

---

From: Tony Finch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 18:17:32 +0100

Randy Bush <[email-masked]> wrote:

> what a laugh.  try, for example, RFC 826

Perhaps a better example is RFC 6325.

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <[email-masked]>  http://dotat.at/
Cromarty: Northeasterly backing westerly, 5 or 6. Moderate or rough.
Occasional rain. Moderate or poor.

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 13:51:38 -0400

How about RFC 1661.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]

---

From: tglassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 06:20:24 -0700

> Perhaps a better example is RFC 6325.
Try this

"The IETFis and open and fair framework  produces standards for use in 
both networking and internetworking services for global communication" 
and the reasoning is that when ITU and other orgs like it were formed 
there was not Internetworking or Local Area Networks and so the IETF was 
formed to emerge the need to facilitate standards in these two key areas 
which other groups like ITU and IEEE with the underlying 802 work were 
not providing.

-- 
//Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended recipient.