Talk:Internet Protocol

Note that Internet Protocol version 4 also exists. Chris Day 03:32, 9 June 2008 (CDT)

As does Internet Protocol version 6. This article deals with commonalities and requirements for the later version. DNS is a technology complementary to both.

There are more detailed articles under the main IPv6 article, and also on complementary techniques such as DHCP.Howard C. Berkowitz 16:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Reorganization from earlier article

I have this pointing to both IPv4 and IPv6, and removed a good deal of text which tried to explain IP in terms of the Open Systems Interconnection Reference Model, rather than the applicable Internet Protocol Suite. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:43, 14 July 2008 (CDT)

Disclaimer

I do cite several papers and presentations of which I was sole or co-author. All are peer-reviewed and are formally public domain, or, in the case of the presentation, was given to a public forum and no copyright was claimed. Please let me know if there are any concerns.

I have written professional books on addressing and routing; others may want to put them into the bibliography if they see fit. The 1998 book is more of historical interest; although it does consider both IPv4 and IPv6, it also discussed the plethora of proprietary protocols they replaced. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Approval readiness

Given this is a "core article", with IPv4 and IPv6 arguably major sub-cores under it, and that it also is under the core Internet Protocol Suite and other architectural articles such as locality of addresses, I'd like it considered for approval. Editors, please consider its level of detail with respect to those other articles. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

What the devil does "protocol" mean in this sense, anyhow?

I've been using computers for 25 years now, and the Internet for 13 years, and I know my way around both of them fairly well in a rough and ready way. I'm also a college graduate with a degree in English, and I *still* don't know what "protocol" means in this sense. Since the word is being used about a dozen times in the first 100 words of this article, I think it would be not only a favor, but also extremely useful, to define it for the long-suffering reader at some early point in the article. Thanks. Hayford Peirce 22:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Protocol (computer), linked in the lede sentence. If you prefer, the words of the magical spell. If one incorrectly follows a magical protocol, ribbit. ribbit. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, and I reject the concept. If an article is called Spamity Leafton, for instance, I think that both words should be defined *within* the article, NOT by links. Maybe I'm just feeling particularly grouchy and stupid today, but that's how *I* feel about it, and I'm sure that there are lotsa equally grouchy and equally stupid people out there who would agree with me. Remember, this encyclopedia is still supposed to be written in normal English, with normal English conventions, not just in computerese because we have the ability to do so. Hayford Peirce 22:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I reject the rejection. At the level of end users such as yourself, it should be reasonably obvious that a protocol is a set of rules by which the computer operates, just as it is a set of rules for diplomatic interaction. To get into how a computer protocol works, however, does take some preparation in principles of networking (e.g., computer networking reference models), formal logic and automata theory, binary arithmetic, and, quite likely, knowledge of operating system principles. I've taught IP for close to twenty years, and I have never been able to beyond "rules" without some preparation. The subset of the concept that is an IP address can, very loosely, be likened to a phone number, but that's about the limit of simplification.

This article, incidentally, is far more accessible to nonspecialists than many in mathematics and medicine. I'm not a beginner, and I'm still trying to find an absolutely clear statement of the relationship between an adrenergic beta-agonist and a sympathomimetic, although I can use the concepts. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, nevertheless it will not hurt to start with: "The Internet Protocol (IP) is a precisely defined set of rules (a protocol) which describe how computers on the internet have to communicate and interact and how they pass information from one to another" (or so) Peter Schmitt 22:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. That doesn't identify the critical aspect that IP is one of many protocols required to make the Internet work; it oversimplifies. I'd be willing to extend It is the protocol on which the Internet is built to add by providing a framework over which packets of information can be transferred, independently of the types and numbers of underlying physical media and administrators. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

But this again uses the "incriminated" word without explanation ... another attempt:
The IP is a set of precisely defined rules (one of many protocols required to make the Internet work). It is the protocol on which the Internet is built by providing a framework over which packets of information can be transferred, independently of the types and numbers of underlying physical media and administrators.

It's an improvement, but I remain unconvinced it's necessary. Take, for example, continuum hypothesis. In the first paragraph, the idea of a set, natural numbers, real numbers and perhaps cardinality are implied prerequisites, not even linked as I did protocol (computer). Mathematics articles often are simply not accessible without background.

There's a serious tradeoff between having linkable definitions, and having a lede that flows for someone with at least some background. In my articles on intelligence, for example, I link to terms of art. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Peter is attempting to make the article more user-friendly, and accessible to idiots like me, while you, Howard, seem to be arguing that it should remain obfuscated. Why? Aren't you the person who, within the last week or so, argued eloquently that a lot of gearheads, programmers, and longtime computer-types simply didn't recognize the fact that most people in the world didn't have their background and that the simple, elementary stuff (to them) was incomprehensible nonsense to the rest of the world? Why not try a simple test: walk into a shopping mall, grab 100 adults at random, and ask them to tell you, in twenty words or less what "protocol" means? If five of those people can give you an even approximate answer I would be astonished. Hayford Peirce 23:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, I did not explain well the point last week. My comment on "simple elementary stuff" was directed to the computer scientists, to get across the idea that the simple stuff is not and will not be. Templates are unlikely ever to be at a level where the average person can pick them up and use them, without endangering the wiki.

It's a Rodney Dangerfield sort of problem. Some disciplines, computer science being among them, don't get the respect that their terminology is nuanced and needs hard work. As I just pointed out to Peter, no one seems to expect all mathematical articles to be understandable without background. We have a large number of medical articles that will not be accessible without an understanding of biochemistry and physiology. They don't remotely have the linked definition such as protocol (computer).

There are areas in computing, and indeed other fields, where the proper understanding of someone who does not have the background is "much magic. Gods say leave alone." Think, now, of the beginning computer science student, who does have the background -- at what point does "user friendliness" make it hard to read a focused introduction? Apropos military, there is a British tradition that while commanding a warship takes a lifetime of expertise, "any fool can command a regiment." Library and information science, I've noticed, is another such area, which many assume anyone can do and doesn't have nuanced rules. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Vanishing it

I fail to see the improvement by "set of rules", given that if necessary, that's a single click. I'm not going to remove it out of hand, but I think it's a hand-waving oversimplification that adds nothing. Had it been that straightforward, I would not have written protocol (computer).

What are you going to do with the information that it's a set of rules? What does that tell you more than the Common Law is a set of rules? Howard C. Berkowitz 00:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)