Talk:Computer networking end-to-end protocols: Difference between revisions
imported>J. Noel Chiappa (Old name fine) |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz m (typo) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
I thought the old name was perfectly fine. No other field has "end-end protocols" this could be confused with. [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 17:49, 17 May 2008 (CDT) | I thought the old name was perfectly fine. No other field has "end-end protocols" this could be confused with. [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 17:49, 17 May 2008 (CDT) | ||
===Reasoning=== | |||
Not another field, but a subfield: this lets me avoid the term "layer", thus finessing OSI vs. IPS arguments. Will be doing the same to each "level". You and I know have Been There and Done That enough that we don't expect a layer to be more than a concept for organizing thoughts, but the #1 problem I encounter with newbies is the reverence they pay to the False Gods of OSI Layers That Must Have Some Real Existence. ''They must! They must!'' | |||
Incidentally, while I am in process of creating [[Computer networking internetwork protocols]], I'm not averse to getting further into your idea of a shim layer between [[Computer networking media sharing protocols]] and [[Computer networking media attachment protocols]]. Yes, these are new label, but I think I can get away with using them as a pedagogical device. If not, I can always write something and get it peer-reviewed. :-) | |||
Actually, I make some lower layering distinctions, along these lines, in my book, ''Designing Addressing Architectures for Routing and Switching'', which, admittedly, is about 10 years old. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 18:17, 17 May 2008 (CDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 17:49, 17 May 2008
|
| Metadata here |
Name
I thought the old name was perfectly fine. No other field has "end-end protocols" this could be confused with. J. Noel Chiappa 17:49, 17 May 2008 (CDT)
Reasoning
Not another field, but a subfield: this lets me avoid the term "layer", thus finessing OSI vs. IPS arguments. Will be doing the same to each "level". You and I know have Been There and Done That enough that we don't expect a layer to be more than a concept for organizing thoughts, but the #1 problem I encounter with newbies is the reverence they pay to the False Gods of OSI Layers That Must Have Some Real Existence. They must! They must!
Incidentally, while I am in process of creating Computer networking internetwork protocols, I'm not averse to getting further into your idea of a shim layer between Computer networking media sharing protocols and Computer networking media attachment protocols. Yes, these are new label, but I think I can get away with using them as a pedagogical device. If not, I can always write something and get it peer-reviewed. :-)
Actually, I make some lower layering distinctions, along these lines, in my book, Designing Addressing Architectures for Routing and Switching, which, admittedly, is about 10 years old. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:17, 17 May 2008 (CDT)