> implemented/used today is also useful but a rat-hole… therefore we try
> cover this aspect briefly in this doc but do not aim for completeness
> here.
Yes, this is likely for a later document. However, I think we should
make sure that some transport API have not implemented some
n
"the following ones are exposed in the API today".
I think this makes sense. That said, beyond just the specs, I think it
would be useful to consider what current implementations provide too, as
this may offer a slightly different set of features which is,
nonetheless, what developers of real a
?
Without much thinking, I think there is value in considering
authentication as a transport feature, but I'm afraid this might incur
some unneeded complexity.
That said, if nobody has spoken up for section 3.8, Ralph Holz (Cc'd)
and I would like to volunteer to write it up.
--
Olivier M
lighting the underlying features of the protocol, even
though these APIs are not what needs to be described.
The synthesis in section 4 should come at a later stage, once 3.2 (and
perhaps a similar discussion in SCTP's section), have been written up.
--
Olivier Mehani
PGP fingerprint: 4435 C
