> On 10. okt. 2016, at 19.10, Joe Touch <to...@isi.edu> wrote:
> Hi, Gorry (et al.),
> On 10/10/2016 9:56 AM, go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk <mailto:go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk> 
> wrote:
>> ...
>> OK, so in the context of TAPS, the WG called for a list of UDP services.
>> This is what is in the  ID. ...
>> This ID clearly isn't an API spec.
>> ...
>> I don't personally know whether an API spec for UDP is useful or not, but
>> suspect the list of services needed by UDP Apps is the thing the WG is
>> presnetly looking for.
> I have to admit I have no idea what you mean by "the list of services
> needed by UDP Apps" if that doesn't basically start and end with the UDP
> API.

It’s not an API spec but it does “basically start and end” with the API. It 
follows the same approach as
draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage, which also very much “basically starts and 
ends” with the API, in how
primitives are derived. Details on this relationship are maybe clearest in the 
appendix, where we describe
how to contribute text  (in some future version, this should probably be 
renamed into “how this document was

> Anything else needed by UDP apps isn't needed because they're UDP. And
> having that list (of "things besides the UDP API") without a proper UDP
> API wouldn't be very useful.

It certainly is the right input for anyone creating an API. E.g., it IS the 
input from which we derive our protocol-independent
API in the NEAT project.


Taps mailing list

Reply via email to