Talk:Protocol data unit

Computing: Networking Start‑class Low‑importance

	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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
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).

Telecommunications Start‑class Low‑importance

	Telecommunication portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications 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.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Diagrams

Some diagrams might make this article more accessible. In networking books they usually show different layers and how a PDU goes on each one. Gravix 01:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No word "datagram" found in article

What is a datagram? Mathiastck 22:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fragments - click. Relevancy? --165.173.14.76 00:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the TCP/IP Guide (online version available for free here http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/t_MessagesPacketsFramesDatagramsandCells-2.htm), they say that "datagram" also refers to a PDU of higher levels instead of "data" like this very article is saying. Could someone clarify? Bragador (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Segments" redirection

The "segments" link goes to a disambiguation page, the relevant link on which redirects to this page. 67.185.99.246 19:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ISO7816 APDU

APDU redirects here but the page says nothing about smart cards nor APDU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.219.231.40 (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smart card APDUs aren't the only types of APDUs in existence. Guy Harris (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Physical layer: symbol instead of bit

Shouldn't the PDU of the physical layer be the 'symbol' instead of the 'bit'? Most times bits are not transmitted individually if I'm not mistaken. Qorilla (talk) 11:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OSI model bias

The TCP/IP model is under-represented here. With Internet Protocol as dominant as it is, doesn't pdu deserve to be shown in this light as well? Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TPDU

I relocated the content from TPDU (finance) and linked that article here. I had posted this source for expansion in that article's talk page, so it will probably be useful here. BTW, I'm not sure if there's two TPDUs, one in which the T stands for "transaction" and another one in which it stands for "transport", or they're both the same thing. Anyone? --uKER (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say what TPDU (finance) is since there are no refs and no incoming wikilinks. Maybe this? ~Kvng (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a new Transaction Protocol Data Unit stub article with refs cited above. I have modified TPDU and TPDU (finance) to point there. I can't find any reliable information about Transport protocol data unit and the information in this article is nonspecific and uncited so I have removed this section. ~Kvng (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OSI layer 1 PDU is bit / symbol vs PPDU

Apparently the official definition of the OSI layer 1 PDU is the bit / symbol. Yet the diagram at the top of the article shows the layer 2 PDU encapsulated in a physical layer PDU.

Which is correct? Outside2017 (talk) 04:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019 Addition

Cunnfum (talk · contribs) added information to this article yesterday and also several other articles I follow recently. I believe that the user has clear expertuse in the subject area but is new to wikipedia, and the addition here is problematic in a similar way to some other edits. The text inserted reads:

When aggregated into linking protocol batches, protocol data units are reconfigured based on the specific framework algorithm. Retrieval issues are prevented by cross-layered data reformatting systematics inherent to the protocol function, effectively securing packaged protocol data units from potential corruption incurred in transmission.

The problems I see with this are as follows:

It is dropped into the middle of a description of a PDU and breaks the flow of that description which was written in a manner designed to help a layman as well as a technical reader to understand the concepts. This therefore causes problems of clarity;
It introduces cross layer discussion that is unnecessary here;
I find the English a little opaque. I can try to copy edit that, but not entirely sure what the point being made is, so perhaps that can be discussed here; and
Two sources were quoted. The first source does not verify because it links to a whole chapter entirely about TCP, and not about a PDU in general. It does not contain anything that supports what seems to be said here. The second source does not use the quoted page numbering so I cannot find the pages referred to.

I would delete the whole thing, and have done so for some other user contributions, but there are positives here too. The editor has provided sources for a page that was distinctly lacking sources, and I think has valuable expertise too. So instead of deleting, I am hoping we can get some discussion here and find a way to focus the contributions in a way that enhance the article for readers. I have, however, flagged the section for clarity and marked the sources to show there are problems to resolve. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]