Re: Ada.Networks.Sockets hierarchy for standardization?

["Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca>]

Michael Erdmann wrote:
> Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote:
> 
>> For discussion: I have thrown together this evening
>> a more formalized view of some "chicken scratching" I did on my
>> train commute home this evening. The diagram is available at my
>> web site (see PDF link further on).
> 
> I like it. But may be the names services should be put under
> Services.

Hi Michael:

The problem that I see is that there is a fairly major
distinction between DNS (Name_Services) and what
Ada.Network.Services.Internet represents. The later represents
a database of mappings between numeric port numbers (services)
and their names (ie. "http" maps to port 80).

Name_Services is much more than that. It is an entire protocol
built upon the transport(s) (DNS uses UDP and TCP/IP), and in the
case of DNS, it is distributed and fairly complex in operation.

There are also different name services, and
X.500 represents another from the OSI model. So if you move
these, then I think they should either be grouped under
"name services" or put underneath the general set of protocols
built upon. But I personally like to group name
services together, because they represent one major
"category" of network function.

Maybe an improvement might be to move "Ada.Networks.Services" over
to child package Ada.Networks.Protocols.Internet.Services
instead (these would only be Internet specific of course).
Alternatively, it would be tempting to just merge it right
into the package Ada.Networks.Protocols.Internet. The mappings
for ports and the protocol selection constants aren't that
far apart in concept.

Other protocols like X.25, may not even need a
"services" package. Its been years since I used Datapac (X.25),
but IIRC there is no concept of a port. You just use a DNIC
(address) and perhaps select the service once you connect to the
host at the remote end. Perhaps the service selection is
embedded in the DNIC (I forget). OTOH, the amateur radio
protocol AX.25, which is based upon X.25, does support up to
16 ports (I forget now, but one of these 16 may be reserved).

Take a look at the v2 document below:

http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg/Ada.Networks_Hierarchy_v2.pdf

Here I moved Services (in blue) underneath
Ada.Networks.Protocols.Internet.  I think that perhaps that
child package might be best merged into Internet, but what
do you'all think?

I still think Naming services should remain distinct, and probably
underneath Ada.Networks somewhere, though package names and overall
organizaton are certainly open for more discussion. Is there
a better name for Name_Services? Should this be Directory or
Directory_Services?

> Maybe i have missed it, but what is the difference between red
> and black boxes?
> 
> Michael

The red just indicated what I believe should be a minimum effort
for a "complete" implementation. The blue in the link above, is
just to highlight the change.

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg