Protocol Design Pattern (was Re: [saag] Last Call: <draft-dukhovni-opportunistic-security-01.txt>)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]