Re: [tsvwg] Draft diffuser to QCI v04 posted

["Holland, Jake" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jerome,

I wanted to clarify one thing that I perhaps didn’t explain well in my proposal.

From: "Jerome Henry (jerhenry)" <jerhenry=[e-mail]>

from multiple entities. This led me to the conclusion that it was preferable to establish a complete list (what maybe Jake calls ‘a library’), with expression of intent for each and possible label, avoiding label overlap as frequently as possible.

<JH>
My intent with the term “library” was something more like a dynamically linked shared executable object that runs on a host operating system—something along the lines of libxml, zlib, or libresolv, which could be linked into programs running on the host OS to provide functionality through API calls that host applications could use.

The functionality I was proposing to provide in this library was to do a service discovery and lookup into a network-provided web API, to find the network provide mapping from name to codepoint through that web API.

The complete list you describe with well-known names mapped to feature descriptions would be a new registry, similar to the service names registry but hopefully smaller (e.g. https://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-port-numbers.xhtml)

This registry and the names in it would be known to the app, the library, and the web service providing the codepoint mapping for the network.

I just wanted to clarify the terminology I intended, since from your comment I wasn’t sure whether I had made it clear enough, since it seemed like you were describing what I’d call a “registry”, but saying I’d call it a “library”, and I realized I might have been too loose with the terminology.  I guess this is part of why a proper proposal is supposed to be written up as an internet draft instead of a hasty email ;)

HTH.

Best regards,
Jake
</JH>