On 6/19/2015 3:42 PM, Mohamed Oulmahdi wrote:
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 12:11 AM, Joe Touch <to...@isi.edu
<mailto:to...@isi.edu>> wrote:
You're getting far ahead of the conversation, IMO. This document
needs to start by explaining the services we already have before
jumping into a "service of services" model.
I don't disagree with the goal, but it's impractical to develop a
meta-interface when the base interface has not been described.
It is just to say that TCP already defines its services, and the goal is
not to give another definition of these services, but only to change the
way they are exposed to applications. So the services definition already
exists, but implicitly.
It's explicit - see section 3.8 of RFC 793. The issue with that variant
is that it captures the state of TCP in 1981; it has evolved quite a bit
since then. Although we do have a 793-bis in the works, the update of
that section hasn't been tackled yet.
Let's put it this way:
- if the goal of TAPS is to unify existing APIs,
then those APIs need to be summarized together in one place
- if TAPS is indeed focused solely on an alternate API,
then it should NOT try to 'restate' the existing TCP API
in a TAPS doc
"Do, or do not; there is no try."
- Yoda
Joe
_______________________________________________
Taps mailing list
Taps@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
