Hi, >>>> On Jun 30, 2019, at 11:34 PM, Aaron Falk <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> What shall we use our face-time for in Montreal? >>>> >>>> Some topics from our last interim >>>> <https://etherpad.ietf.org/p/nots-interim-2019-taps-02?useMonospaceFont=true> >>>> seem like good candidates for updates. Can we refine them with specific >>>> to discuss (and ID someone to launch/lead the discussion)? >>>> >>>> Framing >>>> Implementations >>>> Parameters & Defaults > I’d volunteer for this one too. > > >>>> Yang model >>>> Why do people resist specific protocol selection? (from Yang discussion) >>> I’d volunteer to lead this discussion, but I wonder: is this really worth >>> the time - as in: do we really (still) have any resistance to this idea? >> >> Looks like… but I guess we have two different topics here: >> - Property Profiles (shortcuts for common sets of properties) >> - Explicit Protocol Selection >> >> I originally insisted to keep them separate, as I really like to have the >> first one and feared the discussion for the second one. As I opened PRs with >> proposals for both of them >> (https://github.com/ietf-tapswg/api-drafts/pull/328 >> <https://github.com/ietf-tapswg/api-drafts/pull/328> and >> https://github.com/ietf-tapswg/api-drafts/pull/327 >> <https://github.com/ietf-tapswg/api-drafts/pull/327>), I got no fire and >> fury, but only constructive feedback. >> So I agree with Michael that we may really have a short discussion on >> whether to add these features. > > Ok, it sounds to me like this slot should be called “Profiles / choosing > specific protocols”. Sounds like a nice short discussion to me. >>>> ARCH & API open topics
I’ll volunteer to lead the discussion on the last one. AVE! Philipp S. Tiesel -- Philipp S. Tiesel https://philipp.tiesel.net/
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
