IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Taps] On Profiles for TAPS Preconnections

Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> Tue, 23 July 2019 14:17 UTC

Return-Path: <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
X-Original-To: taps@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: taps@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05F7612011D for <taps@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 07:17:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WNPxm7lR-urZ for <taps@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 07:17:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out01.uio.no (mail-out01.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:10::50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B819D1200B3 for <taps@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 07:17:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-mx10.uio.no ([129.240.10.27]) by mail-out01.uio.no with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1hpvbS-0006iF-9Q; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 16:17:18 +0200
Received: from dhcp-9902.meeting.ietf.org ([31.133.153.2]) by mail-mx10.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) user michawe (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1hpvbR-000Dyb-6i; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 16:17:18 +0200
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_AF43829E-BFF2-4C3E-B852-C5973A39FA49"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
X-Priority: 3
In-Reply-To: <f71bd460-e0a3-47eb-b384-d3dc9b0f1962@email.android.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 10:17:13 -0400
Cc: Tommy Pauly <tpauly=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "taps@ietf.org" <taps@ietf.org>, "Philipp S. Tiesel" <philipp@tiesel.net>
Message-Id: <7DB06BAF-BC10-4367-BD5E-C7EFB698200B@ifi.uio.no>
References: <f71bd460-e0a3-47eb-b384-d3dc9b0f1962@email.android.com>
To: Max Franke <mfranke@inet.tu-berlin.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-UiO-SPF-Received: Received-SPF: neutral (mail-mx10.uio.no: 31.133.153.2 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of ifi.uio.no) client-ip=31.133.153.2; envelope-from=michawe@ifi.uio.no; helo=dhcp-9902.meeting.ietf.org;
X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO)
X-UiO-Scanned: 4DEFF521ED58784B4CBFA5FB306A17884E3A7D0D
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/taps/_c47YkwaZET5zYdzTis9fmqJLVU>
Subject: Re: [Taps] On Profiles for TAPS Preconnections
X-BeenThere: taps@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IETF Transport Services \(TAPS\) Working Group" <taps.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/taps>, <mailto:taps-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/taps/>
List-Post: <mailto:taps@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:taps-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps>, <mailto:taps-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 14:17:24 -0000


> On Jul 23, 2019, at 9:51 AM, Max Franke <mfranke@inet.tu-berlin.de> 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”

Cheers,
Michael

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email