Discussions on Protocol
Start a New Discussion
-
-
Looking at the Software type it appears that a more generic use of Protocol could instead be used to capture those that are not necessarily Internet Protocols (those maintained by standards bodies and used in relaying devices, both hardware and software driven).
My use case for this is the Xboard Communication Protocol which is used in several chess programs and chess engines such as Crafty
Thoughts ?
-
There have been a few earlier discussions about the strangeness of the protocol type, including http://www.freebase.com/view/m/0643r35, but I don't think it got completely sorted out.
-
-
-
I think we need to clearly distinguish between network protocols and communication specifications. In both the Internet domain and the Computers domain, several things are marked as protocol that have no business being protocols. As mentioned above HTTP is a specification for communication between two agents. The protocol used could be TCP, IP, UDP or some other such entity. Even SOAP for that matter is a specification which identifies the format of the message that is to be transported and states nothing about the actual transport engine itself.
Another issue deals with the discussion here because several pieces of software that have their own communication specification are also typed as protocols, which IMO is incorrect. We need a different type for the same.-
Well it doesn't look like anyone cared one way or the other, but I consider network protocols and communication specifications to be one and the same thing. They both deal with the format, ordering, and timing of messages.
HTTP is most certainly a protocol. The fact that it can be layered on multiple kinds of reliable transport protocols, doesn't make it any less of a protocol.
-
-
