Re: Application "core protocol" BOF/WG idea

On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:56:22 +0000 Graham Klyne <GK@dial.pipex.com> wrote:

> While I applaud the general intent, I echo other concerns that the goal 
> is too ambitious.
> 
> Specifically, I find the idea that we can "design a simple core protocol to
> address these problems" is something of a tall order.  What I do think may
> be achievable is to identify a range of problems, and then make
> recommendations about solutions to these.

I think that the term "core protocol" is misleading in many ways.    We 
really don't want a complete protocol in and of itself.     Seems to me 
that you could organize it into two distinct classes of thing that would 
be described:

1.   A general set of design guidelines for application protocols.   This 
would include things like binary vs. text commands and payload, encoding 
schemes, specification syntaxes, etc.

2.   A set of protocol components that you can assemble into a specific 
protocol.   This would include many of the things that Chris had in his 
message like authentication, ACL's, capabilities/extensions, etc.    
Not unlike a set of protocol subroutines or object classes.     The list of
accepted components can be quite small to begin with. 

Cheers.

---  
Steve Hole                           
Execmail Inc.
Mailto:Steve.Hole@execmail.com 
Phone: 780-424-4922

Received on Tuesday, 2 February 1999 00:32:50 UTC