From bxxpwg-admin@lists.invisibleworlds.com Thu May 17 20:12:15 2001 Received: from trystero.not.invisible.net ([204.62.247.11]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id UAA29103 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 20:12:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from trystero.not.invisible.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by trystero.not.invisible.net (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA15627; Thu, 17 May 2001 17:10:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from breakaway.Stanford.EDU (breakaway.Stanford.EDU [171.64.20.202]) by trystero.not.invisible.net (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA14902 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 15:08:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (hodges@localhost) by breakaway.Stanford.EDU (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA25932 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 15:08:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200105172208.PAA25932@breakaway.Stanford.EDU> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: bxxpwg@lists.invisibleworlds.com From: Jeff.Hodges@kingsmountain.com Reply-to: bxxpwg@lists.invisibleworlds.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 15:08:12 -0700 Subject: [BXXPwg] terminology wrt "protocol binding" and "BEEP channel profiles"? Sender: bxxpwg-admin@lists.invisibleworlds.com Errors-To: bxxpwg-admin@lists.invisibleworlds.com X-Mailman-Version: 1.1 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Mailing list for the IETF's BEEP Working Group X-BeenThere: bxxpwg@lists.invisible.net The question, then some background, and then a proposal.. My question is: "how does one, from 'outside' the BEEP context, talk about specifying the 'binding' of some protocol onto BEEP?" Background: The term "protocol binding" is sometimes used to refer to the specification of the layering of one protocol onto, or "over", another. The term "profile" is used (outside of the BEEP context) in the sense of making use of a specification (e.g. X.509) in the context of some other spec (e.g. PKIX is a "profile" of X.509; c.f. RFC2459). The BEEP protocol spec (RFC3080) uses the unadorned term "profile" to name a collection of definitions of syntax and semantics that specify a particular channel behavior. Proposal: A proposal is to say something like (where "FOOP" is a short for "FOO protocol" (which is imaginary)).. "In order to specify a protocol binding for FOOP over BEEP, one must write and register a 'BEEP channel profile for FOOP'." Other ways to say it.. "FOOP's BEEP channel profile" "The FOOP BEEP channel profile" "The FOOP-over-BEEP protocol binding is specified via the FOOP BEEP channel profile." "The FOOP-over-BEEP protocol binding is specified via the BEEP channel profile for FOOP." A sub-proposal, implicit in the above, is that when speaking/writing from a perspective "outside" of (or "external to") BEEP, one should use "BEEP channel profile" to refer unambiguously to what's called simply a "profile" in the BEEP context (i.e. RFC3080). So, does the above make sense? For completeness, I'll note that the term used to describe the so-called "binding" of BEEP itself onto TCP (RFC3081) is "mapping". Nominally, it seems to me the above still holds and makes sense even if the word "binding" everywhere above were replaced with "mapping". thanks, JeffH _______________________________________________ BXXPwg mailing list BXXPwg@lists.invisible.net http://lists.invisible.net/mailman/listinfo/bxxpwg From bxxpwg-admin@lists.invisibleworlds.com Fri May 18 14:02:26 2001 Received: from trystero.not.invisible.net ([204.62.247.11]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA09856 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 14:02:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from trystero.not.invisible.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by trystero.not.invisible.net (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA28338; Fri, 18 May 2001 11:01:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dbc.mtview.ca.us (ppp-63-207-83-130.ded.pacbell.net [63.207.83.130]) by trystero.not.invisible.net (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA28320 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 11:01:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FATORA (ppp-63-207-83-135.ded.pacbell.net [63.207.83.135]) by dbc.mtview.ca.us (8.11.0+3.3W/8.11.0) with SMTP id f4IHaTp14462; Fri, 18 May 2001 10:36:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <10e601c0dfc4$7d5aa350$8753cf3f@FATORA> From: "Marshall T. Rose" To: Cc: "Marshall Rose" References: <200105172208.PAA25932@breakaway.Stanford.EDU> Subject: Re: [BXXPwg] terminology wrt "protocol binding" and "BEEP channel profiles"? Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 11:00:56 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: bxxpwg-admin@lists.invisibleworlds.com Errors-To: bxxpwg-admin@lists.invisibleworlds.com X-Mailman-Version: 1.1 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Mailing list for the IETF's BEEP Working Group X-BeenThere: bxxpwg@lists.invisible.net Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit hi. am i correct in summarizing your proposal to be: when talking outside the context of the BEEP specifications, use the term "BEEP channel profile" when referring to what is called a "profile" inside the BEEP specifications if so, sounds like a fine idea to me. /mtr _______________________________________________ BXXPwg mailing list BXXPwg@lists.invisible.net http://lists.invisible.net/mailman/listinfo/bxxpwg From bxxpwg-admin@lists.invisibleworlds.com Fri May 18 14:30:41 2001 Received: from trystero.not.invisible.net ([204.62.247.11]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA10984 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 14:30:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from trystero.not.invisible.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by trystero.not.invisible.net (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA28625; Fri, 18 May 2001 11:29:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from breakaway.Stanford.EDU (breakaway.Stanford.EDU [171.64.20.202]) by trystero.not.invisible.net (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA28609 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 11:29:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (hodges@localhost) by breakaway.Stanford.EDU (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA03723; Fri, 18 May 2001 11:29:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200105181829.LAA03723@breakaway.Stanford.EDU> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 Subject: Re: [BXXPwg] terminology wrt "protocol binding" and "BEEP channel profiles"? To: "Marshall Rose" , bxxpwg@lists.invisibleworlds.com In-reply-to: "Marshall T. Rose" 's message of Fri, 18 May 2001 11:00:56 -0700 Reply-to: bxxpwg@lists.invisibleworlds.com From: Jeff.Hodges@kingsmountain.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 11:29:42 -0700 Sender: bxxpwg-admin@lists.invisibleworlds.com Errors-To: bxxpwg-admin@lists.invisibleworlds.com X-Mailman-Version: 1.1 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Mailing list for the IETF's BEEP Working Group X-BeenThere: bxxpwg@lists.invisible.net thanks for the note Marshall. > hi. am i correct in summarizing your proposal to be: > > when talking outside the context of the BEEP specifications, use the > term "BEEP channel profile" when referring to what is called a "profile" > inside the BEEP specifications > > if so, sounds like a fine idea to me. That's part of the proposal. The other part involves how one more generally talks about the "binding" or "mapping" of another protocol onto BEEP, from outside the context of BEEP. E.g. Such a binding can conceptually look like this (from outside the context of BEEP).. +----------------------------+ | (some protocol, e.g. FOOP) | +----------------------------+ <-- the "protocol binding" for | BEEP | FOOP-over-BEEP +----------------------------+ | TCP | +----------------------------+ | IP | +----------------------------+ So it seems to me that an unambiguous way to talk about this is thus.. "In order to specify a protocol binding for FOOP-over-BEEP, one must write and register a 'BEEP channel profile for FOOP'." My question is whether you will find statements, such as the one immediately above, to be clear and unambiguous when you're evaluating them in a context external to BEEP (e.g. in the context of, say, designing "FOOP"). thanks JeffH _______________________________________________ BXXPwg mailing list BXXPwg@lists.invisible.net http://lists.invisible.net/mailman/listinfo/bxxpwg From bxxpwg-admin@lists.invisibleworlds.com Fri May 18 18:40:18 2001 Received: from trystero.not.invisible.net ([204.62.247.11]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id SAA18165 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 18:40:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from trystero.not.invisible.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by trystero.not.invisible.net (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA00265; Fri, 18 May 2001 15:39:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dbc.mtview.ca.us (ppp-63-207-83-130.ded.pacbell.net [63.207.83.130]) by trystero.not.invisible.net (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA00235 for ; Fri, 18 May 2001 15:39:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FATORA (ppp-63-207-83-135.ded.pacbell.net [63.207.83.135]) by dbc.mtview.ca.us (8.11.0+3.3W/8.11.0) with SMTP id f4IMEUp15223; Fri, 18 May 2001 15:14:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <133f01c0dfeb$54abd5b0$8753cf3f@FATORA> From: "Marshall T. Rose" To: Cc: "Marshall Rose" References: <200105181829.LAA03723@breakaway.Stanford.EDU> Subject: Re: [BXXPwg] terminology wrt "protocol binding" and "BEEP channel profiles"? Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 15:38:59 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: bxxpwg-admin@lists.invisibleworlds.com Errors-To: bxxpwg-admin@lists.invisibleworlds.com X-Mailman-Version: 1.1 Precedence: bulk List-Id: Mailing list for the IETF's BEEP Working Group X-BeenThere: bxxpwg@lists.invisible.net Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > when talking outside the context of the BEEP specifications, use the > term "BEEP channel profile" when referring to what is called a "profile" > inside the BEEP specifications > In order to specify a protocol binding for FOOP-over-BEEP, one must write > and register a 'BEEP channel profile for FOOP' yes, fine with me! /mtr _______________________________________________ BXXPwg mailing list BXXPwg@lists.invisible.net http://lists.invisible.net/mailman/listinfo/bxxpwg