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
