From: Taps <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Michael Welzl Sent: den 23 juli 2019 16:17 To: Max Franke <[email protected]> Cc: Philipp S. Tiesel <[email protected]>; Tommy Pauly <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Taps] On Profiles for TAPS Preconnections
On Jul 23, 2019, at 9:51 AM, Max Franke <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: 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. +1 on this if it’s a workable solution (sounds like it is), and a particular +1 on the side comment about "consistently moving all conveniences to the appendix” I agree an appendix can be a good idea. I would still prefer not to define a list of profiles, rather mention the concept of profiles as one of the convenience functions and perhaps give an example. Anna Cheers, Michael
_______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
