Re: [dispatch] A WG for HTTP API Building Blocks

Roberto Polli <robipolli@gmail.com> Wed, 02 September 2020 10:29 UTC

Return-Path: <robipolli@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62B063A0E75 for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 03:29:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PTZP5l1YkC-p for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 03:29:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x136.google.com (mail-il1-x136.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03FC13A0E73 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 03:29:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x136.google.com with SMTP id p13so4512136ils.3 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Wed, 02 Sep 2020 03:29:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=qthP7B2EybQkcmpj/vvBn0hCzSwENo5eEaJGbJCKK40=; b=bZyofC9FCB8RuqZxdmY2OqBCf2G7IfdbrCqcMew1dDV7P9GusIRihq74JTh6MOABD3 1ben+gjw3LlUn/pjzVfsT+L+0J6RiXW6kXnm+FWedtgL9o0cFgseoXUYMj/8NRg8t6YQ 1JHv3Sjw5eY8SrRUI6k/IpijhftfOe461a24hYtsN0ubKufZpg03dr1F6C2nGtAwyqxH sCy5PHYbYbTGCmDlIIxCaQTLlRSB1KB5wYvH5CrQLM3f7vM6EnPW7gddMZrYgoO3GPi+ y8YgfKI0SyphFAldMqCh5l3IUwKXsRMxpgI2ScMKVRf12DugqYcEp4yEWD47CEY/W01F Imqg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=qthP7B2EybQkcmpj/vvBn0hCzSwENo5eEaJGbJCKK40=; b=oxg8JbLOCPMulU2jppb60UgFFqt3xJ1ZPdz1Li9vZotBdTmzVaet9/Z0uBzeNdQT/h h8rHDZoVocOtJ9DnGJyqBAxDDCDIC+er9sF9WfA0ORiqlKx6PnUmtrxjtSQ18x7XgF/d 8JOMgzpZnzVlFGio3c3omqzIJGCNk+8PTYk5Bi3hBombe7DMhr+NdUqfsA4do1FLHz8g ALpas87Rw0IQ9XiZYUUNvZ6YUU2w0Nd1aI4cMZ9iBUZw+v99ttdykyRXYLUHUVCIZX1A yWBuXlwLGrcfKYGPd8+ERKha1p5IDS4cDWaRPu+0bi4d+Q1daU8zVn4vaAkW68g6cHdK ZAHg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532OuLO8dEQphexH795njtjY/7yevgn5cSiDMMf7ilzunRL7+1xc lbIYFVTAYIZkVUPfa8byNdxE5jQS7K7xKVIy7A9r7wE9r0P8Ew==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyzUiUSeARZhRraAPhxE0y/Gg3Sq4U/uoTEMtTnoaeDYL3RwtTx1Kt0IFgRFfn/fHfzMB/4bU9Dg06+20EcsIk=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:110e:: with SMTP id u14mr3038767ilk.270.1599042585862; Wed, 02 Sep 2020 03:29:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Roberto Polli <robipolli@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 12:29:34 +0200
Message-ID: <CAP9qbHUSffj1JsN+tYa3=DGhPhxth9r+t6jwVE2dHuhPYXuoOg@mail.gmail.com>
To: dispatch@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004fa55d05ae521d3b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/HWkpZg88-J78eBWDuPZ7KOOEqSY>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] A WG for HTTP API Building Blocks
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2020 10:29:50 -0000

Hi Mark et al,

I think that a WG for HTTP API Building Blocks is really necessary to avoid
fragmentation and is a great opportunity to provide a common ground for
providers and
consumers to meet.

Mark wrote:
> [http api wg] output can include:
> • Specifications for new HTTP header and/or trailer fields
> • Specifications for new message body formats, or conventions for use in
them (e.g., patterns of JSON objects)
> • Proposals for new HTTP status codes, methods, or other generic
extensions, to be considered by the HTTP Working Group
> • Best practices and other documentation for HTTP API designers,
consumers, implementers, operators, etc.
+1

Darrel wrote:
> I do believe now is the right time for this effort.  The majority of
large companies have recognized the need for network based
> APIs to be an essential part of their technology platform.  I see this
regularly as part of my work with the OpenAPI Initiative.
> However, frustration with the inconsistent and sometimes poor use of HTTP
is causing companies to look closely at more prescriptive but less
ubiquitous solutions.
+1

When dealing with large ecosystems of API providers - eg like in government
- with hundreds of suppliers
it is very hard to provide guidance even when you have RFC/BCP. In EU we
are even facing the challenge
of providing cross-border APIs for all Member States, and it would be great
to provide a global framework to support the principal choices :)
This can be thus relevant not only for consumers, but for providing
services to citizens.

Which are the next steps toward the creation of the WG?

Have a nice day,
Roberto

PS:

[I just subscribed to dispatch, in case the mail is not properly threaded,
this is the original link
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/pWx1SgjZS4R3nzXEK-jE6xqOqUc/]