Talk:Protocol (computer)
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)
making separate articles for every protocol will leave us with a bunch of 2 line articles, as if we are waiting for that. Robert Tito | Talk 11:09, 24 February 2007 (CST)
What if we clustered related protocols such as TFTP, SFTP and FTP, they still all have the same function, the protocols are just slightly different. The article might be entitled FTP and have the different variants of it. The same could be said of one for RIP, RIPv1 and RIPv2 would go into the same page. It's not a certainty, but it would help limit one-liner protocol pages. Especially if we cluster them well.
--Paul Derry 15:26, 24 February 2007 (CST)
There is pedagogic value in comparing different protocol stacks (IP, IPX, X.25, etc.) and how the addess the same problems, so even if we don't want to become a compendium of protocols, it's worthwhile to consider some basic examples and compare them. Greg Woodhouse 14:42, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
big problems with overall relationship of articles
First off, "protocols" are used in computer science in areas far outside physical networking. Anybody can design a thing called a "protocol" to allow any two things (or larger group of things) to communicate. So the name of the article is too broad at the moment, or else the focus of the article is too narrow. Secondly, this article duplicates much of the content of OSI 7-layer model and computer network. I'm not judging just what should go where. I'm saying that we need a coherent plan on how all these articles are going to cooperate. We also have internet, world wide web, and a number of other articles springing up like weeds without any gardener's hand guiding their inter-relationships. Help! Pat Palmer 14:34, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
some things in the list of protocols are not protocols
In the TCP/IP networking terminology, FTP is an "application" (as in OSI 7-layer model), not a protocol. So is SMTP. The list of things there are not all at the network protocol level in the so-called "network stack", which is kind of messy and may lead a reader into confusion. Pat Palmer 16:08, 15 May 2007 (CDT)
- Actually, FTP (and, for that matter, telnet) are both the names of protocols and of application clients. When one issues an ftp command from a command line interface, it invokes the File Transfer Protocol (RFC 959 and various updates). ftp is also a method in URLs. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:25, 9 May 2008 (CDT)
can we reverse the order of the stack?
In all literature, the Application Layer is always depicted "on top" (first). Is there a way to hand-number a list so that layer 7 is "on top" and layer 1 on "bottom"? Pat Palmer 16:15, 15 May 2007 (CDT)