> On Jul 23, 2019, at 9:51 AM, Max Franke <mfra...@inet.tu-berlin.de> wrote: > > > > The API prescribed by this document is abstract, and needs to give freedom to > implementations to make things elegant in their particular languages. > > What about having an appending, that's non-normative and not required for RFC > compliance, that describes suggested conveniences, such as > "properties.prefer()" and the concept of convenience profiles? > Yes, I like this idea. I also agree that the API is complex enough as it is > and requiring convenience features to be RFC compliant is probably not a good > idea. As long as we are consistent with moving all conveniences to the > appendix this is my preferred option.
+1 on this if it’s a workable solution (sounds like it is), and a particular +1 on the side comment about "consistently moving all conveniences to the appendix” Cheers, Michael
_______________________________________________ Taps mailing list Taps@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps
