Talk:Remote Operations Service Element protocol

	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).
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Six or Seven?

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

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]

Oppose - Not a proper name, remote operations service element protocol is just a concept. Stick with the MoS - no need for an exception here. Joja lozzo 02:12, 21 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]

Oppose all the capitalization requests by Dgtsyb until he produces evidence for the claims that these are propoer names; none of the ones that I have checked in book are. Dicklyon (talk) 05:57, 21 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]

~~Oppose~~ Support This article is not a generic concept of services that deal with remote operations. This article is about a specific protocol defined by a specific entity. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:55, 26 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]

Support the evidence is the standard documents and almost all other mentions of this, which is one very specific protocol. The generic concept probably closes is remote procedure call which is correctly lower case. Would also support moving to Remote Operations Service Element or even ROSE (protocol) but prefer spelled out name. Ironic that Presentation Layer is uppoer case "L"? That seems backwards since there are several of those. Another precedent seems Transaction Capabilities Application Part which is presented as another example in a similar role. W Nowicki (talk) 21:40, 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

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 protocol → X.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. As per my comment at Common Management Information Protocol. (Care to explain the revert of my move, btw?) Nageh (talk) 22:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You moved this to a title that did not have consensus while I was moving it to the title that had consensus in the move discussion and you even supported. So I was just completing the move requested. I just figured that I left off that last word. It is really impolite to move pages out from under someone trying to complete the close of a requested move. If you had waited for a hour, this mess would have been avoided. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - This was coincidence then. I just saw the page moved, and decided to give it the more general title Remote Operations Service Element per my edit summary that the ROSE protocol would only be one part of the service element as by the specification. I understood the revert as in WP:BRD but expected a rationale. Anyway, sorry for the mess. Nageh (talk) 09:47, 28 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.