Talk:Protocol ossification

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Further expansion potential[edit]

Didn't find these in the sources I found, which I'd've liked to have included:

More history of the problem. When did people really start paying attention to ossification? What are the major landmark results? When was the term coined? Is there prehistory?
What rate of intolerant paths/middleboxes makes a protocol undeployable on the Internet?
Linkage to Moxie Marlinspike's essay titled 'The Ecosystem is Moving', and more broadly the topic of protocol evolution & deployability. That might make for an article in its own right if the right sources can be found.

Polyphemus Goode (talk) 09:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wire Image[edit]

The term "wire image" is used repeatedly - but is nowhere defined. 2601:600:C880:34E0:E5B1:44C3:64DA:2BCE (talk) 06:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I took the term from RFC 8546 as a useful abstraction that basically means all the information that can be gleaned about the communication by participants other than the endpoints. I was thinking it might make sense to turn the redlink blue with a redirect to a new section of communication protocol describing the idea and implications of different design points, viz cleartext wire images are bad for privacy, unauthenticated wire images allow middlebox meddling, but encrypted wire images knock out some presently-useful operational tools and research opportunities. Polyphemus Goode (talk) 10:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]