Garrett D'Amore wrote: > That would not be a terrible way to recast the specs. Although, I think > it might come about that we need or want to handle more details than just > stream vs datagram semantics on some transports. For example, imagine > websocket, where we might want to specify some things that are neither > covered by websocket itself nor by the generic SP over STREAM bits. (In > particular, for websocket, we might want to have a way to select from > different “applications” as part of the early websocket negotiation.) Oh, for sure - but my point is that by defining based on semantics, then you have a base to reference in everything else. Then the only thing something protocol-specific needs to do is say "This has X semantics, so refer to RFC Y, and we take advantage of special property Z like so..." Plus, that lets you collapse TLS and DTLS' protocol-specific portions into a single RFC, because they apply the same _security_ semantics to SOCK_STREAM and SOCK_DGRAM _transport_ semantics respectively. > I do agree with your earlier idea that tls+tcp:// seems like a good way to > specify this scheme. I’ll go ahead and change my implementation to do > that. > > I think we need to include the syntax of these “addresses” as part of the > RFCs, so that different applications or implementations can exchange them. That does make sense. > -- > Garrett D'Amore > Sent with Airmail > > On March 24, 2014 at 3:22:50 PM, Alex Elsayed (eternaleye@xxxxxxxxx) > wrote: > > One thing I'd wonder is if TCP/TLS/UDP are the right thing to key the > specification on - what actually seems to be _relevant_ is "SP over > transports with SOCK_STREAM semantics" and "SP over transports with > SOCK_DGRAM semantics" - that then covers TCP, TCP+TLS, AF_UNIX SOCK_STREAM > (IPC), IPC+TLS, UDP, UDP+DTLS, etc. > > Martin Sustrik wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Hi all, >> >> I've added first drafts of UDP and TLS RFCs into the rfc subdirectory. >> Feel free to comment. >> >> Garrett, you'll probably want to make yourself the editor of the TLS >> draft. I don't have enough experience in the area to make a sane >> editor of that document. >> >> As for generating the txts from xmls I am at the moment using online >> xml.resource.org tool. Later on we can add xml2rfc to the build process. >> >> Also note that I've added the RFCs to the nanomsg package. >> >> Martin >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ >> >> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTL8uaAAoJENTpVjxCNN9Y7j4H/0mfcV8UsKuJuCzitWoM8puH >> RdQGvHJCaZCAlWcjogUQis+NTSEO5UlasCpqG9jsq57o0Rt5ZnDytvqHPDLfBXmB >> DsBghtDyufr3GC7L6G/EApQKCjn/+LfmHETiGUhAT2mUX0yGFulP4oc5RWbawzB0 >> AGEL3OdZELonOSV4G9QcPskbUaatD4jjhEcjG76LqXE3TC58B30yKxIKZrFRla/S >> Zs9LMGAiBdMd8qJf5ymBsot0geu2Ej2K73P9/0pS9pa1roKcNLUOt0n8h/j4XdUz >> HsXwV0u4mmc7aw1xmP8p8mrMvGGgeHUaXmKAsXPGE5qJDwBhp2tbTPtS2rsXxj4= >> =xHyP >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----