Hi, I don’t want to go into specifics about this draft, that should be up to its authors… just a general point:
> On 3. apr. 2016, at 21.20, Toerless Eckert <eck...@cisco.com> wrote: > > 1. Steps 1 and 2 look to me like "inside sausage factory", aka: > trying to reverse engineer the justification for some sane service > descriptions > from past IETF work and real implementation knowledge on the side. I think > it would be lovely if Step 3 could end up as a separte document thats used > going forward, and 1.1 are for folks in historic interest (aka: separate > them out). > > But i am sure there is all type of important IETF/TAPS reasoning why this is > not desirable ;-) Step 2 is a better practical basis for developing an API than step 3. I’d agree about step 1; this only exists to systematically arrive at steps 2 and 3. The reasoning behind the three steps is explained in draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage Cheers, Michael _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list Taps@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
