You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The http-receiver is not really self-explainatory, it could be renamed to data-plane-transfer-sync-http-edr or something like this. Maybe it's too verbose, but I was wondering if we need that data-plane prefix on the data-plane-transfer-* extensions.
Which Areas Would Be Affected?
extensions
Why Is the Feature Desired?
comprehensiveness
Solution Proposal
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
to be honest, I don't think data-plane should be mentioned, it's misleading, building a control-plane but defining data-plane (or dpf ) dependencies on it... at the end we're talking about providing transfer capabilities to the control plane.
I'd propose:
Feature Request
The
http-receiver
is not really self-explainatory, it could be renamed todata-plane-transfer-sync-http-edr
or something like this. Maybe it's too verbose, but I was wondering if we need thatdata-plane
prefix on thedata-plane-transfer-*
extensions.Which Areas Would Be Affected?
extensions
Why Is the Feature Desired?
comprehensiveness
Solution Proposal
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: