Hi Mirja! On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 8:30 AM Mirja Kuehlewind < [email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Martin, hi all, > > > > I just had a quick glance at your draft and have two thoughts to offer: > > > > 1. How is the protocol API different then the taps API? If a new > protocol already offers the taps API (without the actual flexibility to > choose between more than one protocol of course), the mapping would be > easy. > > I have not completely thought this through, but I believe it will be very similar, modulo various language issues (e.g. no support for objects) > > > 1. I guess you need something like MUD for protocol where capabilities > of a protocol are described in a unified way. However, maybe the properties > we have in taps is also more or less what you need…? > > Yes, my initial intent for these to exactly map to the protocol properties in taps-interface.
_______________________________________________ Taps mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
