[Debtags-devel] Protocols descriptions, ATM - HTTP, tag question

[Torsten Marek]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Enrico Zini schrieb:
> 
>>* protocol::lp
>>Tag misnamed, should be lpr, maybe unix-lpr (see
>>http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1179.txt).
> 
> 
> I'm fine with renaming it.
Okay, I'm gonna do it someday then.


> 
> 
>>* protocol::aol-messenger, protocol::icq:
>>"Real" ICQ is dispreferred, ICQ uses OSCAR nowadays
>>Thus, it would be better to merge protocol::aol-messenger and protocol::icq into
>>new protocol::oscar with the description "OSCAR (AIM/ICQ)".
> 
> 
> I'd rename this only if all ICQ clients we have are also AIM clients,
> and vice-versa.

Well, the thing is that both ICQ and AIM use the same protocol (OSCAR) to
connect to the servers.
Wikipedia quote
<quote>
Currently OSCAR is in use for AOL's two main instant messenging systems: ICQ and
AIM. OSCAR is currently a binary protocol. Large parts of the protocol are
nowadays understood after reverse-engineering the protocol, implemented by an
ever-increasing number of clients.
</quote>

The problem that arises here is the distinction between the technical layer (and
"protocol" is a strictly technical term) and the IM network (where AIM and ICQ
are two different things)

- From a strictly ontological view, the information about used protocol and im
network belongs into different facets. Once the first GoogleTalk clients appear
in the Debian, we get the same problem: GoogleTalk is a network different from
Jabber (the network), but uses Jabber (the protocol) and XMPP (the protocol, the
core of the Jabber protocol). From a pragmatical POV the question arises whether
this is necessary / beneficial for the users.
We would then have:

instant-messaging::aim (Implies: protocol::oscar)
instant-messaging::icq (Actually Implies: protocol::oscar, which is the same as
ICQv{7,8,9}. Only really old clients would be protocol::icq)
instant-messaging::jabber (Implies: protocol::jaber, [protocol::xmpp])
instant-messaging::jahoo (Implies: protocol::yahoo)
instant-messaging::msn  (Implies: protocl::msn)


>>* Why isn't it protocol::pop3, but protocol::pop?
> 
> 
> I guess because grep pop /etc/services gives pop2, pop3, pop3s and kpop,
> so we went for something that could include them all.  I don't know if
> it makes sense nowadays, though, and pop3 could really be the one that
> includes them all anyway.
Wikipedia says:

<quote>
The earlier versions of the POP protocol, POP (informally called POP1) and POP2,
have been thoroughly made obsolete by POP3. In contemporary usage, the less
precise term POP almost always means POP3 in the context of email protocols.
</quote>

So, in an "less precise" meaning, this is correct and there's no pressure for
change. Then again, "apt-cache search pop2" returns only one package, and IMHO
POP3 is much more commonly seen than POP alone; and I never had to work with
POP2 (given that it's deprecated since somewhere in the early 90s). But then
again this is a bogus argument, since I did not work with FidoNet either;-)


pop3s and kpop is just POP3-over-SSL and POP3-over-Kerberos, which are not
protocols in their own right, just the same protocol with an additional protocol
layer beneath them.


greetings

Torsten
- --
Torsten Marek <shlomme at gmx.net>
ID: A244C858 -- FP: 1902 0002 5DFC 856B F146  894C 7CC5 451E A244 C858
Keyserver: subkeys.pgp.net

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDez2WfMVFHqJEyFgRAl3cAKC+FljOwLXUzBO26R+yWzX/InZNXACguj1W
aL2wixumSb7HsaggZ3zUHsI=
=oyEr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----