At the TCPINC session in Buenos Aires, there appeared to be consensus
for the WG to adopt the API document, "Interface Extensions for
TCP-ENO" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bittau-tcpinc-api/):
the chairs called for a show of hands, and somewhere around 8-10 hands
were in favor with none
y, April 11, 2016 2:10 PM
> To: tcpinc
> Subject: [tcpinc] Confirmation of consensus to adopt API document
>
> At the TCPINC session in Buenos Aires, there appeared to be consensus
> for the WG to adopt the API document, "Interface Extensions for
> TCP-ENO" (https:
"Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE)" writes:
> Has the WG discussed the applicability of
> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/writable-mib-module.html to
> Section 2.2?
>
> I know that this question may be a bit unusal for TSV area and even
> more unusal for this specific use case ;-)
>
> Also, it may
Inline
-Original Message-
From: EXT David Mazieres [mailto:dm-list-tcpcr...@scs.stanford.edu]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 6:52 PM
To: Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE); EXT Kyle Rose; tcpinc
Subject: Re: [tcpinc] Confirmation of consensus to adopt API document
"Scharf, Michael (Nokia
lto:dm-list-tcpcr...@scs.stanford.edu]
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 6:52 PM
> To: Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE); EXT Kyle Rose; tcpinc
> Subject: Re: [tcpinc] Confirmation of consensus to adopt API document
>
> "Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE)" writes:
>
>>
iginal Message-
>> From: EXT David Mazieres [mailto:dm-list-tcpcr...@scs.stanford.edu]
>> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 6:52 PM
>> To: Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE); EXT Kyle Rose; tcpinc
>> Subject: Re: [tcpinc] Confirmation of consensus to adopt API document
>>
nal Message-
> From: EXT David Mazieres [mailto:dm-list-tcpcr...@scs.stanford.edu]
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 6:52 PM
> To: Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE); EXT Kyle Rose; tcpinc
> Subject: Re: [tcpinc] Confirmation of consensus to adopt API document
>
> "Scharf, Mich
On 4/12/2016 3:05 AM, Scharf, Michael (Nokia - DE) wrote:
> The link is in my first e-mail:
> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/writable-mib-module.html
>
> The relevant sentence is: "IETF working groups are therefore encouraged to
> use the NETCONF/YANG standards for configuration, especial
> The IESG statement is worded poorly at best. It appears to me to imply
> "when picking between MIB and Netconf/YANG models, pick the latter".
This is how I read it, as well.
> An abstract API should never need to get into such a level of detail to
> require a particular implementation. If you'r
> > An abstract API should never need to get into such a level of detail
> > to require a particular implementation. If you're aiming for something
> > beyond that, IMO the IETF is the wrong place (e.g., a better place
> > would be POSIX).
> To this point, does it make sense to use a common imp
On 4/12/2016 8:17 AM, Kyle Rose wrote:
>> The IESG statement is worded poorly at best. It appears to me to imply
>> "when picking between MIB and Netconf/YANG models, pick the latter".
>
> This is how I read it, as well.
>
>> An abstract API should never need to get into such a level of detail
> Not in an RFC, IMO. Doing so sets details of the interface in stone,
> whether by declaration or implication.
>
> If you can't do it without that sort of example, IMO you have not
> succeeded in the "abstract" part of an abstract API.
Is there an example you'd recommend of an RFC that does this
); David Mazieres expires 2016-07-10
PDT; EXT Stephen Farrell
Subject: Re: [tcpinc] Confirmation of consensus to adopt API document
> Not in an RFC, IMO. Doing so sets details of the interface in stone,
> whether by declaration or implication.
>
> If you can't do it without that sor
On 4/13/2016 7:20 AM, Kyle Rose wrote:
>> Not in an RFC, IMO. Doing so sets details of the interface in stone,
>> whether by declaration or implication.
>>
>> If you can't do it without that sort of example, IMO you have not
>> succeeded in the "abstract" part of an abstract API.
>
> Is there an
That's helpful feedback. Thanks, Joe. (For those who haven't, take a
quick look at section 3.8 of RFC 793.)
The milestone as-worded does not make reference to "abstract", but I
think there is understanding among the chairs and the authors that
this is implied; once adopted, the WG can come to cons
15 matches
Mail list logo
