Hi, > On 22. Jul 2019, at 15:09, Tommy Pauly <[email protected]> > wrote: > > An issue we discussed today in the TAPS meeting was whether or not we should > add a concept of "profiles" to the Transport Services APIs. An example of a > profile is a "reliable, secure, in-order stream"; or "unreliable datagrams". > Another way to think of these profiles are as convenient ways to initialize > common parameters. > > One option is described in this PR: > https://github.com/ietf-tapswg/api-drafts/pull/328 > > To help discern the working group's position, I'll try to distill the > high-level options here: > > 1. Add Profiles as a top-level API document concept that modifies how > transport properties and/or preconnections are created. (This is PR #328.) > 2. Mention in the API document that specific API implementations may expose > conveniences and profiles (presumably as a way to initialize preconnections), > but do not modify the API or specify an abstract symbol for profiles. > 3. Do not mention profiles at all in the API document, but mention something > in the implementation document.
I am definitely in favour of option 1. Our implementation experience with PyTAPS showed that setting all transport properties necessary to get “UDP like service” becomes tedious otherwise. I fear not including them in the examples and the core API will result in many developers rejecting TAPS as too complex to use. The profiles provide a useful convenience to applications (just like the the shortcuts properties.prefer(property) instead of properties.add(property, prefer)). In addition, profiles allow us to be less conservative in how we choose the defaults for transport properties, i.e., we don’t need the TAPS defaults to be TCP compatible as long as the reliable-in-order-stream profile is. AVE! Philipp S. Tiesel -- Philipp S. Tiesel https://philipp.tiesel.net/ _______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
