The process stuff is I think in the WG draft. The questions on port usage of UDP and the implications on the service model - these are things I would like to explore.
Let's see if we can find some additional text on this for the next rev. Gorry > On 3 Apr 2016, at 22:18, Michael Welzl <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
