----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave CROCKER" <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: "IETF-Discussion" <ietf@xxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf