Re: [Taps] Last Call: <draft-ietf-taps-interface-25.txt> (An Abstract Application Layer Interface to Transport Services) to Proposed Standard

Michael Welzl <> Sun, 18 February 2024 10:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FFE1C14F5FC; Sun, 18 Feb 2024 02:37:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.007
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.007 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e3yQxgUC3lys; Sun, 18 Feb 2024 02:36:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:700:100:10::50]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DFA3C14F69D; Sun, 18 Feb 2024 02:36:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=key2309; h=To:References:Message-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date: In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID :Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe :List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=D8XZVnAPYmkUc1ILqHMtUKjjwjlJip3UVJ3XOUwyruo=; b=loIIQV/ZMw5T+Ca8iwfSfO97rQ YhPL9m5nbxSfB1iGS+97rgjL8DV8upxQ3fo+qUS9N9hx10CeiVUDatw3JUL1dQTqdLvOGdgL+lfhA umG+tFH0rsLplk9DrQUqxd3smdJBKFn2wD2RdxAen2+NGK1UrhoVYvIiDFhfp+j/F6csa/eFPUuh9 6v7bD1S0AKZdYhNzEoGQkBmcp8XQpnGCBaXY2bU+hlKR58lE930FG+w64d0FLVUj5DDk4l+oY8C0O P3Z3DKjQDdbJrwdKIB181qTeeRlnw4bbQClgGJ9ueBW+nfOFfqV70p5MSnuuBdT5C7IeWSvbBxGQx jIDzqb3g==;
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96.2) (envelope-from <>) id 1rbeXG-00CKq8-1Q; Sun, 18 Feb 2024 11:36:38 +0100
Received: from [] ( by with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) user michawe (Exim 4.96.2) (envelope-from <>) id 1rbeXF-0008ez-0Y; Sun, 18 Feb 2024 11:36:37 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.\))
From: Michael Welzl <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2024 11:36:34 +0100
Cc:,,, Anna Brunström <>,
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
To: Brian E Carpenter <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.
X-UiO-SPF-Received: Received-SPF: neutral ( is neither permitted nor denied by domain of client-ip=;;;
X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-4.9, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, AWL=0.077, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5)
X-UiO-Scanned: 328891877F954CBBCC79DB6B437F8ED2E075956A
X-UiOonly: 2DD7E97E1BE0D5FE373DA6B1692AEC803E578D8F
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Taps] Last Call: <draft-ietf-taps-interface-25.txt> (An Abstract Application Layer Interface to Transport Services) to Proposed Standard
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IETF Transport Services \(TAPS\) Working Group" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2024 10:37:02 -0000

> On Feb 17, 2024, at 11:00 PM, Brian E Carpenter <> wrote:
> On 18-Feb-24 00:00, Michael Welzl wrote:
>> Dear Brian,
>> I’ll leave it for others to publicly answer your items 1. and 2., but for 3., I wanted to say that we do have an overview of implementations; we thought it would fit best in the companion document that’s focused on implementation, so this is where it is:
> Thanks, that's great. If I have time, I'll look closely at PyTAPS.
> By the way, BCP205 states that the implementation status section is temporary and "The authors should include a note to the RFC Editor requesting that the section be removed before publication."

Hard to believe as this may be, at the time we first added such a section (or discussed it), BCP205 was not a BCP. So much time has passed!
So, sure, yes, we’ll do that; sorry for missing it!