Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

What's PRIMITIVENAME? #549

Closed
mirjak opened this issue Apr 7, 2020 · 1 comment · Fixed by #550
Closed

What's PRIMITIVENAME? #549

mirjak opened this issue Apr 7, 2020 · 1 comment · Fixed by #550

Comments

@mirjak
Copy link
Contributor

mirjak commented Apr 7, 2020

Section 10 of impl draft:
"Below, primitives in the style of "CATEGORY.[SUBCATEGORY].PRIMITIVENAME.PROTOCOL" (e.g., "CONNECT.SCTP") refer to the primitives with the same name in section 4 of [RFC8303]."

I know it's specified like this in RFC8303 but PRIMITIVENAME does not seem to be explained or used. Maybe I didn't look careful enough but to be honest I also didn't find the use of this nomenclature from RFC8303 very helpful...

@mwelzl
Copy link
Contributor

mwelzl commented Apr 8, 2020

Just to answer the comment of usefulness of this nomenclature: this allows back-tracking to the relevant spec., which (I believe) is valuable for people implementing a TAPS system. In the example of CONNECT.SCTP, RFC 8303 describes this as consisting of:

Pass 1 primitive/event: 'Initialize', followed by 'Enable/Disable
Interleaving' (optional), followed by 'Associate'

Initialize and Associate are obvious; naturally, they come from RFC 4960. Considering to use 'Enable/Disable Interleaving' (which is very important for a TAPS system - to implement priorities between streams) is perhaps less obvious, and the text points back at RFC 8260.

tfpauly added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 8, 2020
Text around "PRIMITIVENAME" in implementation draft (issue #549)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants