On Friday, August 15, 2014 17:23:11 Dave Crocker wrote: > 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/ So what's your preferred color for the bike shed? Scott K