Hi, Just an update - the list for discussion TAPS related matters has just moved to [email protected] To subscribe, visit: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
Cheers, Michael On 5. mars 2014, at 16:29, Michael Welzl <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear all, > > I thought it would be helpful to give a little clarification about the TAPS > BOF, for those of you who were there. > > I was under the impression that what we're really planning to do didn't quite > get across: an API? where? a middleware? So... > > Defining and prescribing *one* API in *one* place of the stack is *not* the > major goal of TAPS. The goal is to identify the services that are provided by > IETF-defined transport protocols, look at services that applications really > want from the network, and see how we can map the two onto each other. This > is more abstract than an API in that it is not associated with one particular > layer - it is helpful as implementation guidance for people doing APIs or > middlewares. We have written a draft charter that tries to reflect that quite > some time ago already: > https://sites.google.com/site/transportprotocolservices/home/charter-proposal-before-bof > > If you look at the deliverables, you'll see the actual scope that we are > thinking of. We would describe an example API, and we would specify how the > services *can* be provided, but these two things are both meant as examples. > > The intention of the agenda was: > - to give an overview of why this is needed (Jon's presentation) > - to give an example of how a richer set of services than just TCP and UDP > can benefit an already widely deployed middleware, as an easy deployment path > (don't change applications, just the middleware) (Martin's presentation) > - to give an *example* of how this could be implemented (Gorry's presentation) > - to explain how this relates to MIF (Margaret's presentation) > > I am sorry if this wasn't clear enough; now I see that I should have perhaps > given this background initially, but one always knows better in retrospect... > > Please note that there is a website associated with this: > https://sites.google.com/site/transportprotocolservices/ > with e.g. drafts, such as draft-hurtig-tsvwg-transport-apis-00 (this one > should clarify some things, hopefully), and also an FAQ page, with answers to > questions such as "Shouldn't this be an IRTF activity?". If you have such > questions, the best thing to do would be to check this page, and if you > disagree with what you see there, please join our list and tell us. > > => Well, please join us anyway if you're interested. The list subscription > page is: > https://sympa.uio.no/ifi.uio.no/info/transport-services > > I thank everyone who attended for a lively and interesting discussion, and I > hope we can find a commonly agreed upon way to take this work ahead. > > Cheers, > Michael Welzl >
