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

From: Alfred Hönes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:02:20 +0100 (MEZ)

ent wrong  ]]
[[  with my original post, letting it appear empty in the archive;  ]]
[[  so here is the original text (again) .    :-)                   ]]

Hello,

I stumbled over the mid-December IESG deliberations regarding the
I-D after LC, draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-uto, and got stuck at the DISCUSS
position in favor of an API specification in the draft.

I have serious concerns with that position.

For the most part, the IETF has refrained from doing that entirely,
and when it indeed dealt with specifying APIs, it was based on
implementation experience.

The still not finalized SCTP socket API spec story seems to
support my observation that strong feedback from implementations
and use cases can have an important impact on the details of an
API specification, its resulting versatility, and its acceptance.

Externally visible behavior has traditionally been specified first,
giving the API time to evolve.  Therefore, I strongly suggest to *not*
add the specification of a concrete extension of the sockets API (in
support of TCP-UTO) to the draft under consideration, at this stage.

This topic should be re-visited when, at some time in the future,
a revised document targeting at Draft Standard for TCP-UTO might
be considered.

Kind regards,
  Alfred Hönes.

--

+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18         |
| D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  [email-masked]                     |
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+

_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm