On 8/15/2014 2:36 PM, Stephen Kent wrote: > I’m not fond of the phrase “protocol design pattern”. I don’t recall > ever hearing that phrase before. If you substituted “guidelines” or > “principle” for pattern that would be more in keeping with existing > terminology. I was surprised by the term, but mostly felt it was at least trying to move discussion in a useful direction, compared with earlier claims, such as that it was a 'protocol'. However a quick search on the term produced some troubling existing usages that conflict with the usage in the draft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_protocol_pattern "...a design pattern, applied within the service-orientation design paradigm, which attempts to make services, within a service inventory,[1] interoperable with each other by standardizing the communication protocols used by the services. This eliminates the need for bridging communication protocols when services use different communication protocols.[" and: http://www.eventhelix.com/realtimemantra/patterncatalog/protocol_layer.htm "Provide a common framework for implementing different layers of a protocol stack." d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net