Jump to content

Talk:Remote Operations Service Element protocol

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Six or Seven?

[edit]

Some sources classify ROSE as layer 6 (Presentation) and some as layer 7 (Application). [ROSE disambiguation] classifies it (or used to) as layer 6. This page classifies it as layer 7. FOLDOC classifies it as layer 6. And many other sites link to FOLDOC. [ITU] recomendation X.219 "Remote Operations Service Definition" classifies it as layer 7.

It is layer 7. — Dgtsyb (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Remote operations service element protocol -> Remote Operations Service Element protocol

Per WP:CAPS and WP:TITLE: this is a proper noun referring to a single, specific international standard. It does not refer to a general class of protocols that have service elements and affect remote operations. — Dgtsyb (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not class of protocols, but the specific and unique international standard service interface and protocol specified in ITU-T Recommendation X.219, ISO/IEC International Standard 9072-1. It is no less a proper noun than Network File System (protocol). — Dgtsyb (talk) 06:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is not a generic concept but a specific protocol (cf. RFC 1095), and thus should be upper-cased as a proper noun (and like all the other specific protocols on Wikipedia). Nageh (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you support the move rather than opposing it. — Dgtsyb (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I had mixed up the direction of the move. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remote Operations Service Element protocolX.219 – In doing the close and checking the category for this, most of these seem to be listed under the formal name assigned. Rather than keeping the discussion open, I elected to start this discussion to see if there is support for that alternative which was mentioned in another related discussion but not raised here. No personal opinion on this. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Unlike some protocols, such as X.25, X.219 is most commonly referred to as ROSE and not X.219. I don't like ROSE for the title because ROSE is an acronym, not the name of the protocol. — Dgtsyb (talk) 03:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.