Talk:Protocol (computer): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>ZachPruckowski No edit summary |
imported>Paul Derry No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Ideally I think we need a list of protocols, possibly divided by purpose or something, as well as a brief description. This will largely be about aggregating protocols and defining them. -- [[User:ZachPruckowski|ZachPruckowski]] ([[User_talk:ZachPruckowski|Talk]]) 17:12, 20 February 2007 (CST) | Ideally I think we need a list of protocols, possibly divided by purpose or something, as well as a brief description. This will largely be about aggregating protocols and defining them. -- [[User:ZachPruckowski|ZachPruckowski]] ([[User_talk:ZachPruckowski|Talk]]) 17:12, 20 February 2007 (CST) | ||
I think if we seperated the protocols into different articles but had them all under the Computer Protocol category, then it might work out. We could define the protocols based on something like: Connection Oriented and Connectionless such as certain routing protocols and TFTP. --[[User:Paul Derry|Paul Derry]] 17:19, 20 February 2007 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 18:19, 20 February 2007
will a list of more protocols be described here?, TPX/PX, UDP/ICMP etc??? Robert Tito | Talk 17:09, 20 February 2007 (CST)
Ideally I think we need a list of protocols, possibly divided by purpose or something, as well as a brief description. This will largely be about aggregating protocols and defining them. -- ZachPruckowski (Talk) 17:12, 20 February 2007 (CST)
I think if we seperated the protocols into different articles but had them all under the Computer Protocol category, then it might work out. We could define the protocols based on something like: Connection Oriented and Connectionless such as certain routing protocols and TFTP. --Paul Derry 17:19, 20 February 2007 (CST)