IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] [Tsvwg] API related DISCUSS for draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-uto

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Fri, 30 January 2009 00:19 UTC

Return-Path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tcpm-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-tcpm-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0728028C1F9; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:19:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D7B73A689F; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:19:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zw2bSZk7PdPo; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:19:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE9F53A6859; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:19:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [75.209.223.67] (67.sub-75-209-223.myvzw.com [75.209.223.67]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n0U0JDnx005827; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:19:15 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <49824780.9080808@isi.edu>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:19:12 -0800
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@Sun.COM>
References: <200901211957.UAA02570@TR-Sys.de> <1FFDE2586B687DAD64427796@446E7922C82D299DB29D899F>
In-Reply-To: <1FFDE2586B687DAD64427796@446E7922C82D299DB29D899F>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: Alfred H?nes <ah@tr-sys.de>, tcpm Extensions WG <tcpm@ietf.org>, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] [Tsvwg] API related DISCUSS for draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-uto
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/tcpm>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Chris Newman wrote:
> I absolutely agree with your position except the statement about the
> IETF refraining from APIs (we have done APIs such as getaddrinfo,
> advanced sockets, LDAP C API, GSSAPI, etc).  If you read my discuss
> position, I am not asking for inclusion of the API in this spec, but I
> am asking for the specification to be revised to either:
> 
> * Make it clear the intention is to have communication of this
> information between
>  application protocol implementations and the TCP stack.

IMO, this is OK since it's in the spirit of explaining the impact to the
TCP API, as specified in RFC793.

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkmCR4AACgkQE5f5cImnZrvXxgCg61oYUAUexCK9FzXh25qBUwpB
yokAn06iIlb6yl7O0yTNAHn/SSXpz8MS
=TFoC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status