The API prescribed by this document is abstract, and needs to give freedom to implementations to make things elegant in their particular languages.What about having an appending, that's non-normative and not required for RFC compliance, that describes suggested conveniences, such as "properties.prefer()" and the concept of convenience profiles?
Yes, I like this idea. I also agree that the API is complex enough as it is and requiring convenience features to be RFC compliant is probably not a good idea. As long as we are consistent with moving all conveniences to the appendix this is my preferred option.
Best
Max
_______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
