Joe Touch <[email protected]> writes: > The point of the API is to indicate how the layer above TCP interacts > with TCP. > >> An >> embedded single-purpose network device might not be implemented in terms >> of sockets or anything else, but rather might have the device >> functionality completely intermingled with the protocol implementation. > > That is an implementation issue. The API is an architectural one. > >> Since TCP-ENO is above all a protocol, there's no reason to deem such >> implementations non-compliant. > > A protocol without an API is not a protocol anymore. A protocol is > *defined* by the API it creates (to the upper layers), the API it > expects (from the lower layers; for link protocols, this is the link > wiring), the messages it exchanges, the state it keeps, and the rules > that govern how these 2 APIs, messages, and state interact.
So what do you suggest concretely? Should we say that implementations MUST provide certain APIs? Or that implementations SHOULD provide certain APIs unless precluded by implementation constraints? David _______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
