Talk:Border Gateway Protocol/Archive 1

message: : Note: for a summary of some of the arguments, and the discussion and survey specific to the Requested move, see #Requested_move.
----
NB. Copying some previous discussion that was begun on my user talk page.  Jon Awbrey 17:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Border Gateway Protocol (Capitalization)

message: JA: Watch this space \longrightarrow" ".  Jon Awbrey 17:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Data On Capitalization Practices In English (DOCPIE)

message: JA: No it's not.  So let's put those comparisions aside for good.  Jon Awbrey 21:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is "border gateway protocol" the name of an article, book, corporation, or document?

message: JA: I hope everybody is well-R&R'd.  I know what you think, but this WikiPedantic stuff is not really the "Meaning Of Life" (MOL) in my book, so let me propose that we take our time to sort out the issues over the course of the week, and see what sense of the meeting we've reached when next it's time for TGIF, or as they say in Texas, where the drinking gets going early, "So Happy It's Thursday" — you do the acronym.  I sympathize with this penchant for capitalist acronymphomania more than you know, having spent-wasted a ½-decade of my life in a Standards Working Group (SWG).  But among the many things that WP:IsNot, it is definitely NOT a publisher of Technical Reports (TR1).  Jon Awbrey 17:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MW: Can you explain to me how you justify Border Gateway Protocol being "one" meaningful part of the title "RFC 4271 - Border Gateway Protocol 4"?  I will re-iterate what I previously said, that it is THE meaningful part of that title.  Anyone familiar with the RFC format would recognise this as a fact.  But good for you for trying to belittle it. MatthewWilder 19:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate 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. 
The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 13:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Tabula Rasa]] (TR<sub>0</sub>)

message: MW: To be blunt, what's frustrating is that you (JA) have an unswerving affinity to derail the discussion, and take it to arguments not being made.  The first comment I posted in this discussion referred to acronyms.  I have come to understand that acronyms are not a basis for justifying capitalization.  But I came to this realization by the time I posted my third comment.  And yet, it is maybe the only point you have been harping on for your last 20 points, even though I keep asking you to talk about what we are talking about.  We have "consensus minus one" to change the title back to capitals given that the move was contraversial.  Out of respect to the other people here, you should be willing to change it to capitals and then only to lower case once consensus is reached that way.  Now, as far as the proper name goes, I have brought up examples that you don't even attempt to explain.  You narrowly defined a proper name, and I gave several counter-examples.  You didn't admit that your definition was too narrow, or even explain why these were reasonable exceptions.  Don't ask for discussion and then shy away from it when your position cannot be argued.  Also as a matter of respect, you should be willing to admit when you are wrong.  You claimed that the limiting modifier was sufficient proof (by virtue of your "QED") that the Border Gateway Protocol is not a proper noun.  Again, I will allude to "the Kyoto Protocol".  After all, the article opens with "the Kyoto Protocol".  Further to including the use of the limiting modifier, that article also omits the majority of the title of the documet.  After all, the treaty is really titled Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.  Does that mean that every time you want to talk about the agreement, you have to include the entire title of the document?  Most people would never be able to tell you what it is!  Or should "Kyoto Protocol" be lower case when mentioned on its own?  Though you would demand that, it is impractical to take that stance.  Nobody has made a fuss in that discussion page about the way "Kyoto Protocol" is referred to, and that's because the human mind identifies the "Kyoto Protocol" as a specific and identifiable object, worthy of capitalization on the grounds that it is essentially a proper noun.  To refresh your memory on some other counter-examples, here we go again.  I have ancestors who fled the United States on account of being United Empire Loyalists.  I have never peronally known someone associated with the Black Panther Party.  Finally, I am glad that I wasn't even alive when Fat Man fell or when people endured the Great Depression.  These examples all go against your definition of proper nouns.  I am referring to them because they challenge the status quo defintion that you have been suggesting.  I would like to see your explanation for these.  And if I haven't been clear enough, I would appreciate if you keep the discussion on topic, and move past your point of this "penchant for capitalist acronymphomania", because I moved past it several days ago.  MatthewWilder 15:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Q<sub>1</sub>.  What is a proper name (proper noun)?

message: JA: Puhlease...  Have you even read the article on the TCP?  TCP is about as specific as a Marriage License in Massachusetts.  Try this section just for starters:
Development of TCP
TCP is both a complex and evolving protocol.  However, while significant enhancements have been made and proposed over the years, its most basic operation has not changed significantly since RFC 793, published in 1981.  RFC 1122, Host Requirements for Internet Hosts, clarified a number of TCP protocol implementation requirements. RFC 2581, TCP Congestion Control, one of the most important TCP related RFCs in recent years, describes updated algorithms to be used in order to avoid undue congestion. In 2001, RFC 3168 was written to describe explicit congestion notification (ECN), a congestion avoidance signalling mechanism. In the early 21st century, TCP is typically used in approximately 95% of all Internet packets.  Common applications that use TCP include HTTP/HTTPS (World Wide Web), SMTP/POP3/IMAP (e-mail) and FTP (file transfer).  Its widespread use is testimony to the original designers that their creation was exceptionally well done.
The original TCP congestion control was called TCP Reno, but recently, several alternative congestion control algorithms have been proposed:
* High Speed TCP proposed by Sally Floyd in RFC 3649
* TCP Vegas by Brakmo and Peterson at University of Arizona
* TCP Westwood by UCLA
* BIC TCP by Injong Rhee at North Carolina State University
* H-TCP by Hamilton Institute
* Fast TCP (Fast Active queue management Scalable Transmission Control Protocol) by Caltech.
* TCP Hybla by University of Bologna
A proposed extention mechanism 
TCP Interactive (iTCP) allows applications to subscribe to TCP events and respond accordingly enabling various functional extensions to TCP including application assisted congestion control.
MW: Funny, you conceded that short forms for titles are acceptable.  Border Gateway Protocol is part of the title "RFC 1771 - A Border Gateway Protocol 4".  So "Border Gateway Protocol" is just as valid as "Kyoto Protocol".  As for being specific, "Border Gateway Protocol" and Transmission Control Protocol are just as specific as To Kill a Mockingbird.  Just because there is more than one release, doesn't mean it's not specific.  The revisions and discrepencies arising from the mutliple versions of TCP are fully documented and identifiable.  And since you have conceded that short forms of titles are acceptable, we should consider this case closed, should we not?  MatthewWilder 21:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Q<sub>2</sub>.  What is generic?  What is specific?

message: JA: There has been some mention of "Ease Of Linkage" (EOL) issues, and I fully sympathize with the generic problems thereof.  The more x-citing ½ half of my day yesterday was spent trying to fix a tangle of redirect loops, double redirects, and even a couple of triple redirects in one section of WickerWork that had gotten itself all wound all round about the following apparent multiplicity of terms, all of which actually refer to the same page:
* Digital circuit
* Digital Circuit
* Digital circuits
* Digital Circuits
* Digital circuitry
* Digital Circuitry
* Digital electronics
* Digital Electronics
* Digital logic
* Digital Logic
* Digital network
* Digital Network
* Digital networks
* Digital Networks
* Digital system
* Digital System
* Digital systems
* Digital Systems
* Logic circuit
* Logic Circuit
* Logic circuits
* Logic Circuits
* (incomplete list)
JA: Lunch!  Jon Awbrey 15:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MW: Can you explain to me how you justify Border Gateway Protocol being "one" meaningful part of the title "RFC 4271 - Border Gateway Protocol 4"?  I will re-iterate what I previously said, that it is THE meaningful part of that title.  Anyone familiar with the RFC format would recognise this as a fact.  But good for you for trying to belittle it. MatthewWilder 19:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate 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. 
The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 13:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Q<sub>3</sub>.  "Linkage Protocols" ([[LP]]s)

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
* Support. Stick with spirit and letter of naming conventions: follow common usage and avoid ambiguity of lower case, which doesn't properly signal the unambiguous character of the name.  NealMcB 19:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: It will help to start with this quote from Wikipedia:Naming conventions:
* This policy in a nutshell: Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
See also discussion above(!)  Here, I'll just note that 1) that when referencing BGP from other articles, people will generally want to first refer to it as Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) to clarify for readers that it is a name, not a general term, to clarify that it is usually referred to by the acronoym, and to clarify the acronym. Changing that to lower case will make the text look bad and be confusing, and 2) there are a few other pages like this linked to from BGP, also recently changed to be lower case, and they should also be changed back. --NealMcB 20:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NealMcB: Again, please refrain from basing your case on examples we agree on.  I am unaware of an unambiguous  international standard document which specifies exactly what NMOS logic is, so I'd be easy to pursuade that it should not be capitalized. The point with BGP is that the reader is normally clued in by the capitilization to know that we're talking about a specific, well  efined thing which one can check normative references on to find out exactly how the world has agreed to spell it, define it, and  se it.  And that is useful and important - in fact it is part of the miracle of Internet standardization, ubiquity and openness  hich enables Wikipedia itself to exist.   It would also help if you were to directly address cases like TCP - do you plan to move  hem to lower case also?  --NealMcB 04:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MW: As Neal has mentioned at the end of his comment, you should have been clear about your objective from the first time you moved this page.  It should have been done as a requested move, AND you should have requested a series of page moves, since your intention is clearly to have the entire set of internet protocols in lower case. MatthewWilder 15:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: MW: Apples and oranges.  It is irrelevant how English readers will read and recognise NMOS.  That is not the topic of discussion, and the discussion above has already identified key differences between NMOS and BGP.  Point 1 appeals to the similarity that arises from both terms being commonly reffered to in acronym form.  Again, there are important differences, so this point is not meaningful.   MatthewWilder 15:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: MW: Kyoto Protocol is a very common (if not the most common) reference given to Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.  Similarly, Border Gateway Protocol is the most common (if not the only) reference given to "RFC 4271 - A Border Gateway Protocol 4".  Both are documents, and in fact both are even protocols.  The similarities of these two cases seems to be evidence enough that Border Gateway Control in capitals is definitely proper usage.  In other words, the lexical hand fits the lexical glove.  And as they say, if the glove fits, wear it!  MatthewWilder 15:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: MW: However "concrete" your "experience" is, we have already debunked this argument (please read the first comments in this section).  In case you don't want to go back, I will summarize.  The slippery slope is non-existent, as the demand for capitlisation comes because the Border Gateway Protocol is a well defined and standardized protocol, that is documented in RFCs.  These other examples simply aren't, and so if this topic is successfully renamed, there would not be a substantial basis for renaming the other articles.  MatthewWilder 21:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Part 1

message: JA: I will need to break this into subsections, as my browser gets overloaded.  I will first try to identity a few points of agreement, then I will copy out some of the recurring questions from above and try to give the shortest possible responses.  Jon Awbrey 01:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NealMcB: Again, an article titled "border gateway protocol" would need to talk about the concept of a border gateway protocol in general computer science terms, which would not at all be what the typical reader is looking for.  And it is not what this article is about.  This article is about the very specific protocol widely used in the Internet.  Yes there are a few (just a few) variations, but they typically bend over backwards to maintain compatibility, a fact of great importance and interest to the reader.  To reduce this ambiguity (a central goal of the Wikipedia Naming conventions quoted at the beginning), we capitalize this title - as we always have, for nearly all standards-track IETF protocols, as the world expects.  Changing this would increase ambiguity and chaos, and cause much more redirection.  I'd also like you to go on the record as to whether you think the articles on TCP, UDP, IGMP, etc should also be changed to be lower case.  --NealMcB 05:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Part 2.  [[Rules of Engagement]]

message: JA: As many observers have already indicated, the decision to be resolved in the focal case of the border gateway protocol has consequences for the organization of the entire WikiPedia complex that go far beyond the content and the title glued on a single article.  It is incumbent on prudent IT practitioners to consider the global system-wide consequences of the policies and precedents they chose to enact on each of the local cases that they encounter.
That is the reason why wise practitioners will trouble themselves to review respectable samples of real data on the global consequences of any local action they take.  And that is why I have troubled the court with this samll sample of actual data on current customs and practices in WikioPolis:
* Algebraic normal form (ANF)
* Analog-to-digital converter (ADC)
* And-inverter graph (AIG)
* Application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC)
* Automated theorem proving (ATP)
* Automatic test pattern generation (ATPG)
* Bill of Rights
* Binary decision diagram (BDD)
* Bipolar junction transistor (BJT)
* Cathode ray tube (CRT)
* Central processing unit (CPU)
* Chicago Manual of Style (CMS or CMOS)
* Common Law
* Complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS)
* Conceptual graph (CG)
* Conflict of Laws
* Conjunctive normal form (CNF)
* Constitution of the United Kingdom
* Context-free language (CFL)
* Digital-to-analog converter (DAC)
* Digital signal processing (DSP)
* Digital signal processor (DSP)
* Disjunctive normal form (DNF)
* Double-data-rate synchronous dynamic random access memory (DDR SDRAM)
* Dynamic random access memory (DRAM)
* Electronic design automation (EDA)
* English Common Law
* Entitative graph (EnG)
* Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA)
* Existential graph (ExG)
* Field effect transitor (FET)
* Field-programmable gate array (FPGA)
* Finite state automaton (FSA)
* Finite state machine (FSM)
* First-order logic (FOL)
* Fundamental theorem of algebra (FTA)
* General linear group (GL)
* Harvard Chart Method of Logical Equation Reduction
* Higher-order logic (HOL)
* Integrated circuit (IC)
* Intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM)
* Intermediate value theorem (IVT)
* Junction gate field-effect transistor (JFET or JUGFET)
* Linear feedback shift register (LFSR)
* Mean value theorem (MVT)
* Metal oxide semiconductor field-effect transistor (MOSFET)
* N-type metal-oxide-semiconductor (nMOS)
* Organic light-emitting diode (OLED)
* Prelabor rupture of membranes (PROM)
* Preterm rupture of membranes (PROM)
* Printed circuit (plural name)
* Printed Circuit (proper name)
* Printed circuit board (PCB)
* Programmable logic array (PLA)
* Programmable logic device (PLD)
* Programmable read-only memory (PROM)
* Prolonged rupture of membranes (PROM)
* Pulse-code modulation (PCM)
* Radio Free Colorado (RFC)
* Random access memory (RAM)
* Read-only memory (ROM)
* Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC)
* Request for Comments (RFC)
* Request for Proposal (RFP)
* Rules of Engagement (ROE)
* Rules of Engagement (DS9 episode)
* Rupture of membranes (ROM)
* Second-order logic (SOL)
* Static random access memory (SRAM)
* Synchronous dynamic random access memory (SDRAM)
* Technical Report (TR)
* Turing machine (TM)
* United Nations (UN)
* United Nations Charter
* Universal turing machine (UTM)
* Very-large-scale integration (VLSI)
* Zeroth-order logic (ZOL)
JA: Maybe you think I'm exaggerating with examples like "Digital Electronic Circuitry Systems"?  The fact is that "truth is far stranger than fiction" (Byron).  To illustrate, here's a brand spanking new article that just came down the pike on 25 May 2006:
* Harvard Chart Method of Logical Equation Reduction
JA: It's pretty clear from the first main heading and other mentions that the "initial contributor" (IC) would have titled it "The Harvard Chart Method of Logical Equation Reduction" if that had seemed at all possible.  The title is no doubt derived from a paper or workshop or something, but I can tell you that it does not depend on me touching it before some other WikiPunctilious editor changes the title to something more WikiProper.  Jon Awbrey 12:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Part 3.  [[Categorical Imperative]]:  Consider the Consequences

message: MW: Perhaps you didn't read past the first sentance of my argument.  That would be consistent with your behaviour, as you have yet to answer two of my questions in an earlier section.  NEWay, It's Happened Before, It Can happen Again.  My point is that Border Gateway Protocol is a standard, much like Controller Area Network and Universal Serial Bus.  It fits in with the standardized group, which is different than nonstandardized technologies (which all or your "concrete experience" seems to pertain to).  So, as much as I appreciate Yet Another Useless Distraction (YAUD) from you (that doesn't address what is being discussed), you missed the mark yet again.  MatthewWilder 19:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NealMcB: References to those discussions would be helpful. Yes, CNF as a concept is better defined. But the difference here is that the name of Chomsky normal form is not standardized, and naming is what this discussion is all about. A better example is Backus-Naur form (BNF) (also known as the Backus-Naur formalism, Backus normal form or Panini-Backus Form). Because of this, I suspect I'd agree with you that the "f" should be lower case. Over time, formalisms like Backus-Naur form get refined by researchers and refactored and renamed, and the way they are taught over time changes. That is not the case with standards-track RFCs, which are defined by authoritative documents. A consensus process is used to name them, and after that there is huge pressure to preserve the name, and interoperability, over time. So there is little risk of an explosion of renaming and headaches for encyclopedia writers. And, as a bonus, there is a good reason to serve the reader of the encyclopepdia by honoring the article with upper case letters. Let me also add again to Matthew's request that you define the outcome that you would like to see. E.g. should the articles on TCP, USB, et al. be renamed? --NealMcB 21:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: MW: What's funny is that if you had read my argument, I wasn't appealing to common usage there.  I was appealing to a common basis of being a standard.  In fact, that basis even supported decapitalising the topics you find so horrific when capitalized!  Do you really have that much difficulty following arguments?  MatthewWilder 21:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: NealMcB: I did indeed take you for a prescriptive language reformer, and I'm curious about Σting - reference?  And I agree that we're recovering from old-style capitalizations, and should give a thought to evolution.  But on the other hand, it seems that the formation of acronyms is on the upswing.  So I take it that you are suggesting that we will end up writing "transmission control protocol (tcp)"..  Do you have a prediction on how long that will take?  I figure the technological singularity will be sooner, and we'll have no trouble then fixing all this stuff, and understanding it too.  So in the meantime, taking advantage of orthographic tools is helpful when warranted. --NealMcB 22:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MW: Since you haven't been given an answer about Σting, I will attempt to answer it.  Σ denotes sum, and when put with "ting" it produces "Sum-ting" (or slang for something) which is Jon's way of demonstrating that if we can get BGP in capitals, then all is lost.  What he seems to be missing (besides answering some of our questions and requests) is that we aren't arguing for the removal of all English language rules.  We are just asking him to stretch his own personal definition of what a proper noun is.  MatthewWilder 18:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Part 4.  [[Standard Of Practice]]:  [[SOP]] To [[Cerberus]]

message: * Number of times that acronyms have been used as a reason for capitalization: 2
* Number of times JA has argued that acronyms do not constitute reason for capitalization: 200 (give or take)  
MW: Just thought I should summarize this for those, who like me, may have lost count.  MatthewWilder 20:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Part 5.  Acronymania

message: JA: Historical Note.  I wrote my last line of Pascal code sometime in August of 1989.  The last time I used the ISO standard version was as a beginning grad student WayBack in the dimness of prehistoric times.  I'm sure that I was less picky about such things then, but the text that was put in the bookstore as the "standard of reference", equivalent to the definition of ISO 7185-1982, was the one that I cited above, and so in the naivete of those days I'm sure that I just believed everything that my professors told me.  But what was your point?  Are you saying that a standard cannot be defined in a Host of formally equivalent ways?  That it can be validated solely by a Laying Of The Hands Of The Reader on a one-of-a-kind token reliquary parchment signed in hemoglobin by the Hands Of Its Authors?  I think we are no longer talking about Standards.  I think you have in mind The Da Vinci Code.  Jon Awbrey 21:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Part 6.  The Evolution of the Specious