On 6/5/2015 12:53 PM, Mohamed Oulmahdi wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 11:12 PM, Joe Touch <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>     On 6/3/2015 2:26 PM, Mohamed Oulmahdi wrote:
>     > I think that speaking specifically about any protocol in this document
>     > will not be in the sens of an "abstract" interface for the Transport
>     > layer, because abstraction means that application will no longer be
>     > aware of who or what Transport services are really offered.
> 
>     We need to be more clear in what we are discussing.
> 
>     E.g., an "abstract API" (as I've been calling it) is described as in RFC
>     793:
> 
>             OPEN, SEND, RECEIVE, CLOSE, ABORT, and STATUS
> 
>     That's abstract only in the sense that it does NOT specify an
>     implementation in Linux, for example. It is not so abstract that it
>     applies to all transports - it's indicated for TCP only.
> 
> This definition of 'abstract interface" is specific for a given
> protocol, but the aim in TAPS is a higher level (services). In other
> words, if this is the définition of an abstract interface, and is
> already defined in RFC 793, what will be the contribution of TAPS by
> defining its abstract interface?

The first step towards a universal abstract interface is to understand
the current specific abstract interfaces. That's what the current
document is focused on.

> The objective of TAPS is to change the traditional way to use the
> Transport layer. In fact, traditionally, applications select the
> appropriate transport service by selecting a given transport protocol.
> The TAPS vision is to change this, so as applications will request only
> their desired services, via this abstract interface, and it is to the
> Transport layer to choose the appropriate protocol according to the
> application request. It is this level of abstraction that is aimed by
> TAPS. (see the charter, point 3 especially)

In order to unify or further abstract the API, the current API needs to
be understood - but the discussion on the list indicates a lot of
disagreement on this.

Joe

_______________________________________________
Taps mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps

Reply via email to