From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,2d69f4a8070dd707 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-01 00:02:59 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!eusc.inter.net!news.eusc.inter.net!boavista.snafu.de!news From: Michael Erdmann Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada.Networks.Sockets hierarchy for standardization? Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 09:07:47 +0200 Organization: [Posted via] Inter.net Germany GmbH Message-ID: <4bloq-ube.ln1@boavista.snafu.de> References: <3ED83712.8090905@cogeco.ca> <3ED93EF7.1000503@cogeco.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.eusc.inter.net 1054450979 23729 213.73.71.222 (1 Jun 2003 07:02:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@eusc.inter.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: <3ED93EF7.1000503@cogeco.ca> Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:38269 Date: 2003-06-01T09:07:47+02:00 List-Id: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote: > 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). > It makes sense. But i gues these service identifiers may have to be a little more generalized, for example as SAPI. > Name_Services is much more than that. It is an entire protocol .................. > > 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). I think this is a better idea, since the semantic of what is a service verry mutch depends on the doain or protocol stack you are looking at. > 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. I do not understand this. You can run FTAM on top of X.25 which is a service. I gues it would a a good idea to give the term Service a clear definition which fits into the OSI Model. 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). > This is the reason why i think, the better idea is to place the service identifiers alsways near to the protocol stack/domain they are refering to. Michael >