Hi, I added a comment to this issue because I saw it on your slides, to explain: this isn’t really worth discussing. I meant it only as a “todo item” for myself and assigned it to me.
I’ll do it when I do my planned next update on the implementation draft (which this is about). Sorry, I guess this was bad github style. Cheers, Michael > On Jul 22, 2019, at 5:16 PM, Philipp S. Tiesel <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > as time did not permit to discuss all open issues in the session today, I’ll > take them to the list as proposed. > This issue is based on Github issue #145: > https://github.com/ietf-tapswg/api-drafts/issues/145 > > The issue ask for the drafts to point at existing TAPS implementations. > > It might be useful to reference existing implementations (e.g., Apple > NWConnections and PyTAPS) and similar systems (e.g., NEAT, PostSockets, > SocketIntents) that where used as input to the TAPS design. > > > Resolution Proposals: > > a) Add section to appendix > > b) Add notes to acknowledgements > > c) Do nothing and close the issue > > AVE! > Philipp S. Tiesel > > -- > Philipp S. Tiesel > https://philipp.tiesel.net/ > _______________________________________________ > Taps mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
