This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
OSI model article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Open Systems Interconnection page were merged into OSI model. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (June 2019) |
Bluetooth is given under physical layer examples in the sidebar and not in any other layers. Bluetooth goes across a lot of layers so it is inaccurate to say it's only the physical layer. Should we remove bluetooth from the examples? Alastor Moody 20:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prashantverma999 ( talk • contribs)
The physical layer of Parallel SCSI operates in this layer, as do the physical layers of Ethernet and other local-area networks, such as Token Ring, FDDI, ITU-T G.hn, and IEEE 802.11 (Wi-Fi), as well as personal area networks such as Bluetooth and IEEE 802.15.4.
The physical layer of Parallel SCSI operates in this layer, as do the physical layers of < Ethernet and other local-area networks, such as Token Ring, FDDI, ITU-T G.hn, and IEEE 802.11 (Wi-Fi), as well as personal area networks such as Bluetooth and IEEE 802.15.4>.
The physical layer of Parallel SCSI operates in this layer, as do <the physical layers of Ethernet and other local-area networks, such as Token Ring, FDDI, ITU-T G.hn, and IEEE 802.11 (Wi-Fi)>, as well as personal area networks such as Bluetooth and IEEE 802.15.4.
In my opinion the whole sentence is unneeded and distracting. Another way to phrase it would be that the listed examples include specifications for data link layer operations. Stephen Charles Thompson ( talk) 18:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
You would think Open Systems Interconnection would be about the organization but, no, it covers the same topic as OSI model. A merge appears to be in order. ~ Kvng ( talk) 01:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. But the Open Systems Interconnection is barely a stub. So it should be easy enough to merge.-- Brain online ( talk) 03:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
The contents of the Open Systems Interconnection page were merged into OSI model. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (June 2019) |
-- Brain online ( talk) 06:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Notifying community that all merge work is done. Now redirecting. Open_Systems_Interconnection contained some historical details not present in the OSI Model page. I moved those. There were some other links and references that I moved too. -- Brain online ( talk) 06:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I am not happy with the insertion of a mention of and link to Protocol Wars. Per my comments on the newly created page, I think the page is misnamed, and I am not yet convinced it is a notable subject in its own right. Why not have it as a sub section here, and isn't the lack of a subsection here an indication that editors have not seen it as notable?
I am happy to allow that page to develop without taking it to AfD or any other such issues, but until it is clear it is notable and stable (note that I think the page is misnamed for instance) I don't think we should link to it. I am happy to be over-ruled by other editors, and if none come forward, I would be content for you to request a WP:3O but at this point the challenged material should remain out of the article per WP:BRD. Thanks. -- Sirfurboy ( talk) 15:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I've reverted the merge from Open systems architecture into a top importance article as controversial and needs discussion in my opinion. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 03:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Djm-leighpark in what way is the merge I did a contentious merge? Please explain. Thank you. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 04:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
In the text box "OSI model by layer", the SPDY protocol is mentioned as an example for a session layer protocol. However, SPDY does also compress HTTP requests. Compression belongs to the presentation layer (layer 6) in the OSI model. This is however not explained in the text below. It should be made clear that it is not always possible to clearly relate an existing protocol to a single dedicated OSI layer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobias.hossfeld ( talk • contribs) 19:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
The RFC, especially one line in the introduction, does control what layer the protocol is in - the function of the protocol does. HTTP does control and manage the connections between computers. it redirects, closes, opens with CONNECT- it is the first layer that transfers data. It is a session layer protocol in the OSI Model. ** it is Application in the "Internet protocol suite" model **
Above that is HTML, XML, REST, etc. in the presentation layer.
There is even a link IN THIS PAGE that describes this: /info/en/?search=OSI_model#Comparison_with_TCP/IP_model Abbotn ( talk) 12:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
This text "It was published in 1984 by both the ISO, as standard ISO 7498..." has a link on the "ISO 7498" term that redirects back to this page.
A bit navel-gazingly redundant, eh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.153.83 ( talk) 20:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
first (maybe second) sentence mentions ISO, but without describing the acronym. It would be helpful to have it described 50.92.161.150 ( talk) 20:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
DNS is resolved in Layer 7 (Application) but Layer 5 (Session) sections second sentence claims this is where it is done. It is not mentioned in the Layer 7 (Application) description. However in the main article for Layer 7 (Application) DNS is referenced as being part of that layer, correctly. As well as in the main article for Layer 5 (Session) DNS is correctly not mentioned. 103.91.192.50 ( talk) 03:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
OSI model article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Open Systems Interconnection page were merged into OSI model. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (June 2019) |
Bluetooth is given under physical layer examples in the sidebar and not in any other layers. Bluetooth goes across a lot of layers so it is inaccurate to say it's only the physical layer. Should we remove bluetooth from the examples? Alastor Moody 20:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prashantverma999 ( talk • contribs)
The physical layer of Parallel SCSI operates in this layer, as do the physical layers of Ethernet and other local-area networks, such as Token Ring, FDDI, ITU-T G.hn, and IEEE 802.11 (Wi-Fi), as well as personal area networks such as Bluetooth and IEEE 802.15.4.
The physical layer of Parallel SCSI operates in this layer, as do the physical layers of < Ethernet and other local-area networks, such as Token Ring, FDDI, ITU-T G.hn, and IEEE 802.11 (Wi-Fi), as well as personal area networks such as Bluetooth and IEEE 802.15.4>.
The physical layer of Parallel SCSI operates in this layer, as do <the physical layers of Ethernet and other local-area networks, such as Token Ring, FDDI, ITU-T G.hn, and IEEE 802.11 (Wi-Fi)>, as well as personal area networks such as Bluetooth and IEEE 802.15.4.
In my opinion the whole sentence is unneeded and distracting. Another way to phrase it would be that the listed examples include specifications for data link layer operations. Stephen Charles Thompson ( talk) 18:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
You would think Open Systems Interconnection would be about the organization but, no, it covers the same topic as OSI model. A merge appears to be in order. ~ Kvng ( talk) 01:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. But the Open Systems Interconnection is barely a stub. So it should be easy enough to merge.-- Brain online ( talk) 03:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
The contents of the Open Systems Interconnection page were merged into OSI model. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (June 2019) |
-- Brain online ( talk) 06:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Notifying community that all merge work is done. Now redirecting. Open_Systems_Interconnection contained some historical details not present in the OSI Model page. I moved those. There were some other links and references that I moved too. -- Brain online ( talk) 06:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I am not happy with the insertion of a mention of and link to Protocol Wars. Per my comments on the newly created page, I think the page is misnamed, and I am not yet convinced it is a notable subject in its own right. Why not have it as a sub section here, and isn't the lack of a subsection here an indication that editors have not seen it as notable?
I am happy to allow that page to develop without taking it to AfD or any other such issues, but until it is clear it is notable and stable (note that I think the page is misnamed for instance) I don't think we should link to it. I am happy to be over-ruled by other editors, and if none come forward, I would be content for you to request a WP:3O but at this point the challenged material should remain out of the article per WP:BRD. Thanks. -- Sirfurboy ( talk) 15:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I've reverted the merge from Open systems architecture into a top importance article as controversial and needs discussion in my opinion. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 03:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Djm-leighpark in what way is the merge I did a contentious merge? Please explain. Thank you. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 04:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
In the text box "OSI model by layer", the SPDY protocol is mentioned as an example for a session layer protocol. However, SPDY does also compress HTTP requests. Compression belongs to the presentation layer (layer 6) in the OSI model. This is however not explained in the text below. It should be made clear that it is not always possible to clearly relate an existing protocol to a single dedicated OSI layer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobias.hossfeld ( talk • contribs) 19:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
The RFC, especially one line in the introduction, does control what layer the protocol is in - the function of the protocol does. HTTP does control and manage the connections between computers. it redirects, closes, opens with CONNECT- it is the first layer that transfers data. It is a session layer protocol in the OSI Model. ** it is Application in the "Internet protocol suite" model **
Above that is HTML, XML, REST, etc. in the presentation layer.
There is even a link IN THIS PAGE that describes this: /info/en/?search=OSI_model#Comparison_with_TCP/IP_model Abbotn ( talk) 12:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
This text "It was published in 1984 by both the ISO, as standard ISO 7498..." has a link on the "ISO 7498" term that redirects back to this page.
A bit navel-gazingly redundant, eh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.153.83 ( talk) 20:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
first (maybe second) sentence mentions ISO, but without describing the acronym. It would be helpful to have it described 50.92.161.150 ( talk) 20:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
DNS is resolved in Layer 7 (Application) but Layer 5 (Session) sections second sentence claims this is where it is done. It is not mentioned in the Layer 7 (Application) description. However in the main article for Layer 7 (Application) DNS is referenced as being part of that layer, correctly. As well as in the main article for Layer 5 (Session) DNS is correctly not mentioned. 103.91.192.50 ( talk) 03:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)