On Fri, 15 Aug 2014, 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.[" I only see this results for google(protocol design pattern), not google("protocol design pattern") (with quotes). > and: > > > http://www.eventhelix.com/realtimemantra/patterncatalog/protocol_layer.htm > > "Provide a common framework for implementing different layers of a > protocol stack." I do get several results from this site from google("protocol design pattern"), but apparently not this particular one (which is in particular a "protocol *layer* design pattern", which seems quite different. The links on that site that I did follow seem to be about having a software framework that facilitates implementations of protocols that share common design features. As we would like the draft under discussion to inspire future protocol designs to share some common design features (regarding choosing to use encryption and/or other security features), I do not think that the usage is incompatible with our proposal. I think that your observations may just be a failure of the search engine, which is not reflected in the current use among computer science professionals. -Ben