Talk:Computer networking end-to-end protocols: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>J. Noel Chiappa
(Old name fine)
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz
(Method to my madness)
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)

Revision as of 17:17, 17 May 2008

This article is developing and not approved.
 Main Article
 Discussion
Definition [?]
 Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition:  Please add a brief definition or description.
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup category:  computers [Please add or review categories]
 Talk Archive:  none  English language variant:  American English
To do.

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)

Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Computer_networking_end-to-end_protocols&oldid=464816"