Talk:Protocol stack

I would very much like to see the "Protocol Stack" entry remain. Even though I've heard this term and communications protocol terms bantered about frequently, I didn't know they were essentially identical. It's also a good, basic explanation that shows how the "stack" analogy comes into play.

I agree that the idea of a protocol stack deserves separate mention from a communications protocol. A protocol stack, as a software artifact, is distinct from the communications protocol itself, which is just an idea or set of an ideas. The bigger problem with the article is that it is poorly written and as a result unclear, and the ascii-art diagram does little to help matters. 192.80.211.11 14:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I too agree; it should remain, but it needs improvement. The word "stack" is operative. Further, there need not exist a protocol stack in very simple devices employing communications protocols, therefore to merge it with "Communications Protocol" would require someone to write a pre-qualifying opening sentence for the subsection...which would only beg the question, "Why not separate them again?" Lastly "Protocol Stack" is self-explanatory enough to be good hook as "See Also" reference inside the "Communications Protocol" article with little or no embellishment.