On 19. aug. 2014, at 18:13, Toby Moncaster <toby.moncas...@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> > On 19 Aug 2014, at 17:00, Michael Welzl <mich...@ifi.uio.no> wrote: > >> +1. >> >> >> Now, we can perhaps head on to the other charter changes related to this >> re-inserted milestone. I suggest the following undo's => I mean going back >> from THIS VERSION to the PREVIOUS VERSION, which is the version that went to >> IETF review: >> >> THIS VERSION: >> 2) Note that not all capabilities of IETF Transport protocols need to be >> exposed as Transport Services. This document will recommend the minimal set >> of Transport Services for inclusion in the abstract API. The resulting >> document will also provide guidance on making a choice among available >> mechanisms and protocols to obtain a certain Transport Service. >> >> PREVIOUS VERSION: >> 2) Note that not all capabilities of IETF Transport protocols need to be >> exposed as Transport Services. This document will recommend the minimal set >> of Transport Services that support mechanisms must provide (such as those in >> work item 3). The resulting document will also provide guidance on making a >> choice among available mechanisms and protocols to obtain a certain >> Transport Service. >> > > I actually now think the previous version was a little clumsy. Also it sounds > really weird to start this item with a note… This makes me suspect this item > has been over-edited :) > > Should we in fact say: > > 2) Define the minimal set of Transport Services that must be provided by > mechanisms such as those to be specified in work item 3. The resulting > document will give guidance on choosing from available mechanisms and > protocols to provide a given Transport Service. Note that not all the > capabilities of IETF Transport protocols need to be exposed as Transport > Services. I agree, much better, and it's not a semantic change, just language. >> a bit below, for item 3 (last sentence): >> >> THIS VERSION: >> The associated milestone will be scheduled and work on this document will >> begin when the TAPS Transport Services have been specified. >> >> PREVIOUS VERSION: >> Work on this document will begin when the TAPS Transport Services have been >> specified. > > Agreed since we will already have the milestone scheduled > >> >> >> >> Not relevant to this particular discussion, but a suggested minor change >> nevertheless, for the out-of-scope list: >> >> THIS VERSION: >> - Extension, modification, or creation of existing IETF transport protocols >> >> PREVIOUS VERSION: >> - Extension, modification, or creation of transport protocols >> >> >> The only problem I have here is that "the creation of existing.... >> protocols" does not sound very logical. I suggest to remove "existing”. > > I’m guessing this was actually trying to cover 2 things: The creation of new > protocols and the extension or modification of existing protocols. Yes, sure - but my point is that the word "existing" doesn't need to be there to convey that complete message. Cheers, Michael
_______________________________________________ Taps mailing list Taps@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
