> On 27. okt. 2015, at 15.08, Marie-Jose Montpetit <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I agree with Mirja. We have done a lot of “background” work up to now and I > don’t mind long documents as long as they are useful references which I think > the current document is. I am ok with keeping the work on > draft-welzl-taps-transports. But I would also want to move to the next steps > - not that I want a science experiment but my interest from the beginning was > to define how applications can use transports more efficiently both for > existing transports and potential future ones - APIs, discovery etc. I don’t > think we need detailed lists of features as all these transports are > documented elsewhere but better means to advertise them and use them.
How are you going to do this when you don’t know what applies to connection opening, connection maintenance, data transfer? What kinds of error messages are available? I think it’s a much more obvious step from draft-welzl-taps-transports to a generic TAPS API than from draft-ietf-taps-transports, and that’s the whole point. draft-ietf-taps-transports is a nice survey but it doesn’t really help you much for creating an API, I think. Cheers, Michael _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
