Talk:Internet protocol suite

Scheme vs. protocol

HTTPS (actually https:) is a URI scheme, not a protocol. The scheme describes a different protocol stack that includes SSL or TLS, but the protocol is no different. For that reason, might it be better to keep the distinction clear? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 47.153.233.240 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 29 August 2005.

See Talk:HTTPS Hrvoje Šimić 06:55:44, 2005-09-13 (UTC)

Layers in the Internet Protocol stack

The above captioned section groups a lot of TCP/IP and non TCP/IP protocols in the OSI model. There should be something to identify the TCP/IP protocols from these, especially when the article does not provide a list of TCP/IP protocols anywhere else. RMehra 25 January 2006

The Internet protocol suite resulted from research and development conducted by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in the 1970s

@Kvng:@Kbrose: Please can you explain your thinking on this? While work on the ARPANET started in the late 1960s, the ARAPNET was a homogeneous network. The design and implementation work at this stage didn't consider internetworking. ARPA's pivot to focus on internetworking happened in the early 1970s, around the time Larry Roberts left to found Telenet, Bob Kahn joined DARPA from BBN and Vint Cerf became involved, first at Standford and later at DARPA. DARPA's change in direction was driven and approved by Stephen Lukasik. The Internet protocol suite resulted from research and development conducted by the Defense Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in the 1970s (i.e. 1973 onwards). However, the article claims or implies this happened in the late 1960s:

The Internet protocol suite resulted from research and development conducted by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in the late 1960s.

I think we can either tweak the sentence to clarify what we mean, or simply remove it because the following sentence introduces the pioneering ARPANET work in the late 1960s. From my perspective, I'm happy with either although I think it would be better to avoid repeating the same point in consecutive sentences. Would you be happy if we delete the above sentence? We can always keep the citation somewhere else. Whizz40 (talk) 08:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the current sentence can be easily misunderstood. How about evolved or even eventually evolved instead of resulted? There were many milestones and not a single, straight line leading to TCP/IP. --Zac67 (talk) 08:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like a sensible suggestion Zac67. I like the idea. I think the challenge with keeping the sentence with this change is there were other influences on TCP/IP; for example, Louis Pouzin's work on CYCLADES. This section already covers all of this, so I think this sentence would be trying to preempt what we're about to say in the subsequent sentences! Shall we see what others think when they join the discussion? Whizz40 (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

How about:

The Internet protocol suite evolved from research and development begun by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in the late 1960s. After initiating the pioneering ARPANET in 1969, DARPA started work on a number of other data transmission technologies in the early 1970s.

Emphasis added for discussion only. Whizz40 (talk) 10:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, excellent! --Zac67 (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

The revert I did was because I wasn't sure the citation supported the change; my edit comment was, "is that what the ref says?" The first sentence of the proposal here is potentially compatible with the existing reference. I'm unable to access that paper so I don't know. ~Kvng (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I also don't have access to that source. Nonetheless, I think the dates in the proposed replacement above are accurate and the wording is an improvement. Would you be happy if we make that tweak to clarify the opening two sentences of this section? Whizz40 (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable changing cited material without someone reviewing the citation. I could be comfortable if there were an alternate citation to support the new statements. ~Kvng (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks all, changes made by Kbrose look good to me. Whizz40 (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Found a relevant quote, Vint Cerf saying "the DARPA [internetworking] effort had been under way since 1973." [1] I'll add this to replace the CN tag in one of the subsequent sentences. Whizz40 (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Intro sentence

"The Internet protocol suite, commonly known as TCP/IP, is a framework for organizing the set of communication protocols used in the Internet and similar computer networks according to functional criteria."

Is it actually used in "the Internet"? Following the logic it's an internet [only] protocol... it not within the Internet.

Are these protocols limited to computer networks? Wouldn't generic "network" of what ever devices? djk44883 (talk) 11:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what would make it "Internet-only"; it can be - and, as far as I know, is - used in some networks not connected to the Internet. Nothing requires that IP be used only on networks connected to the Internet.

In theory - and perhaps in practice - a hardware device not running any software (such as a device using an FPGA) could have an implementation of IP and protocols running atop it, so, even if anything with a conventionally-programmable CPU is deemed to be a "computer", non-"computer" devices could be on the network. Guy Harris (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

in the Internet and similar computer networks pretty much encompasses all use cases. Computer is applied with a wide definition – any device participating in a TCP/IP network requires some computational facilities, so it needs to contain a computer or could be regarded as a computer itself, even if its primary function is something completely different (e.g. TV, streaming audio player, smartphone, washing machine, car, ...). --Zac67 (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)