[BXXPwg] terminology wrt "protocol binding" and "BEEP channel profiles"?
Thu, 17 May 2001 15:08:12 -0700
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?"
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
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".