Talk:Protocol (computer): Difference between revisions
imported>Nick Johnson No edit summary |
imported>Paul Derry (Protocol List) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
I expanded the article a bunch, emphasizing the OSI model.--[[User:Nick Johnson|Nick Johnson]] 13:29, 22 February 2007 (CST) | I expanded the article a bunch, emphasizing the OSI model.--[[User:Nick Johnson|Nick Johnson]] 13:29, 22 February 2007 (CST) | ||
== Protocol List == | |||
I know there has been some talk about not using categories or lists, but I think we ought to have one for the protocols since they cover such a broad field of use. --[[User:Paul Derry|Paul Derry]] 11:07, 24 February 2007 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 12:07, 24 February 2007
will a list of more protocols be described here?, TPX/PX, UDP/ICMP etc??? Robert Tito | Talk 17:09, 20 February 2007 (CST)
Ideally I think we need a list of protocols, possibly divided by purpose or something, as well as a brief description. This will largely be about aggregating protocols and defining them. -- ZachPruckowski (Talk) 17:12, 20 February 2007 (CST)
I think if we seperated the protocols into different articles but had them all under the Computer Protocol category, then it might work out. We could define the protocols based on something like: Connection Oriented and Connectionless such as certain routing protocols and TFTP. --Paul Derry 17:19, 20 February 2007 (CST)
- I definately agree with the Communications Protocol Category.--Nick Johnson 13:29, 22 February 2007 (CST)
I expanded the article a bunch, emphasizing the OSI model.--Nick Johnson 13:29, 22 February 2007 (CST)
Protocol List
I know there has been some talk about not using categories or lists, but I think we ought to have one for the protocols since they cover such a broad field of use. --Paul Derry 11:07, 24 February 2007 (CST)