Caveat: I am not an expert on registries but my sense is that they are
most useful for interoperability. I think Gorry's concern about
redundancy much less important. And, in fact, it may take a while to
figure out how to describe the parameters. It might be more useful to
allow for variety in how these are defined to permit creative
approaches. YMMV of course.
--aaron
On 24 Jul 2018, at 10:06, G Fairhurst wrote:
I don't yet know for sure myself....
On the one hand: I think a registry is a great way to capture the
"bundle" of things that we know about needing to send across the API.
Having common keywords (names) is a way to help people (who wish to
take this approach) from unwantingly choosing the same function/param
with a different name. And avoids accidentally choosing the same key.
I like these advantages. especially if I thought people would use the
registry.
On the other hand, as an author I am still bemused about exactly which
list of items I think /need/ could appear in this registry. I know
some I'd expect, there are some I would not be surprised to see, and
some I'd expect not to see. Also this doesn't stop people dreaming of
slight variants of functions/params because they want to be different
or don't understand/agree with another definition, especially since
the concrete API isn't specified by the IETF.
There are ways we could help support different uses, which I think we
should consider:
* We can define "well-known" IETF keywords that start with a special
prefix that require some IETF practice to assign;
* we can also define "public" keywords that have no prefix and are
first-come-first served, the easy way to get a unique entery.
* We can allow private defintions with some different prefix that are
not specified by IANA. (We simply preclude this format from the
registry).
This approach has been used in many places, a simple, but similar
transport example is the Service Codes registry:
https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-codes/service-codes.xhtml
- Let's all think about whether this is a useful approach for our API?
Gorry
On 23/07/2018, 21:32, David Schinazi wrote:
We had a similar discussion in the Babel WG regarding link types in
our data model - which isn't sent over the wire.
We landed on having an IANA registry of strings so there is one place
to find the mapping from string to specification.
We're planning on reserving all strings starting with an underscore
"_" for experimental use so the registry does not get in anyone's
way.
Apparently IANA registries have very low overhead.
Hope this helps.
David
On Jul 23, 2018, at 13:15, Tommy Pauly <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hello TAPS,
Migrating a thread from GitHub to the email list, since it needs
broad WG input. I've pasted the discussion so far below.
Essentially, the question is if we have a set of standard properties
for Transport Services APIs, should they have a formal registry or
not?
Thanks,
Tommy
======================================
https://github.com/taps-api/drafts/issues/210
Philipp:
We will end up with a set Turns out we might need a lot of
(protocol) specific properties, we should discuss whether we
need
an IANA registry of properties and how this will look like.
• Include Types ?
• Include Names ?
• Some numeric representation ?
What do we do with ENUM values?
Mirja:
I don't really understand why we would need a registry. Who
would
be using the registry?
Tommy:
I agree that a registry seems unnecessary; this is not a matter
of protocol or on-the-wire standard.
Philipp:
If we don't want to clutter the basic API document, we will end
up having at least a half a dozen documents defining specific
properties for different protocols.
Does anyone have a good alternative to collect all these except
in an IANA registry?
Tommy:
We do not need to have documents specify every property.
Implementation should be allowed to extend as they need.
Brian:
this discussion does suggest that we might want to be more
explicit up front in the interface document about the scope and
purpose of the document (i.e. this is meant primarily to define
a
standard API "shape", not the particular strings and codepoints,
etc.). I'll file an issue.
Colin:
I agree with @tfpauly that we don't need to document every
property, and with @britram that we're documenting the shape of
an abstract API, but I also see value in consistent property
naming across concrete implementations of that API. Some form of
registry might make sense here.
_______________________________________________
Taps mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
_______________________________________________
Taps mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
_______________________________________________
Taps mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
_______________________________________________
Taps mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
