[rfc-i] Text no longer definitive (was Re: Proposed way forwards on backward compatibility with v2)
nico at cryptonector.com
Tue Feb 18 13:58:03 PST 2014
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Joe Touch <touch at isi.edu> wrote:
> On 2/18/2014 1:40 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> If we're aiming at
>> the RFC793 level of detail, I think that's a new guideline for the
>> whole community.
> Not new to everyone. It should be required as a minimum expectation, though
> - including addressing the upper layer interface (API).
You know well that I'm a fan of abstract APIs, but I'd not make it a
guideline that such should be included -- that's a bridge too far for
me even though I would like more RFCs to include some treatment of
abstract API semantics.
More information about the rfc-interest