[rfc-i] Text no longer definitive (was Re: Proposed way forwards on backward compatibility with v2)
touch at isi.edu
Tue Feb 18 14:54:44 PST 2014
On 2/18/2014 1:58 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
> 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.
I'm not sure what it means to define a protocol if you don't specify how
to control it - which means an API of some sort, whether by example (a
Unix API) or abstract.
A protocol operating without an API is easy. It doesn't *need* to do
More information about the rfc-interest