Re: Call for volunteers for C/C++ API liaison manager

Doug Royer <douglasroyer@gmail.com> Thu, 08 May 2014 22:01 UTC

Return-Path: <douglasroyer@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6F491A011F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 May 2014 15:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 lHqu1mcj7so9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 May 2014 15:01:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x229.google.com (mail-pa0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E4311A0153 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 May 2014 15:01:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id lj1so3377965pab.14 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 08 May 2014 15:01:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=14vFo9jaRahmyR9nFW/oDAAtNoZPi1wycpSaXMaitJw=; b=uxWTNaFpYrS5zrbe5yRsY6dQX0uxJ4hy34f/2opLYi1XCFlZQBEw+2Bae/7jHhFkBJ 9T/FFTNSPa/o1BMBXwLkJlMIkT9vWQwPfDDrviUOoIO/1Mnc0TaM2J6M0ojO7Dk5teHK Tr4rm+tpAlfkrncTeJGJSCWVCQLzt1hMZZKgV70ijsQfLKKc8ruDmtFTB68sE1zSat5i gRHI9gIXh16uj2qP92x4vhJY3HzYXmNgsHz8v7crESbsQRveXxg31zQ2UjQdDJkPrvHK WPOcDkkPXElgkuwxTTD4RLzHgrJ0WNt69QM6vBnHnPbtv8csw3azPOshKeikKIMnvGlG UFew==
X-Received: by 10.66.66.202 with SMTP id h10mr12550545pat.70.1399586464542; Thu, 08 May 2014 15:01:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.15.4] (184-76-96-188.war.clearwire-wmx.net. [184.76.96.188]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id vg1sm3804027pbc.44.2014.05.08.15.01.01 for <ietf@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 08 May 2014 15:01:02 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <536BFE9B.8060503@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 16:00:59 -0600
From: Doug Royer <douglasroyer@gmail.com>
Organization: http://SoftwareAndServices.NET
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Call for volunteers for C/C++ API liaison manager
References: <EB423B81-41F2-480D-B1EE-80E1753E1CDB@iab.org> <53618BDD.1080900@isi.edu> <368E668C-E60A-4D65-B3C6-F3CFCB66EBA7@lucidvision.com> <536261F0.1070004@isi.edu> <F12396FD-1035-4530-948C-FBD02DF741D6@lucidvision.com> <53627B10.1080906@isi.edu> <C1014F9B-B387-4251-8E65-99DDB560BB16@lucidvision.com> <5362867E.4090407@isi.edu> <29BD1026-2CFC-49B2-8325-6088EF2FC1A8@lucidvision.com>
In-Reply-To: <29BD1026-2CFC-49B2-8325-6088EF2FC1A8@lucidvision.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms020508000708070707030202"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/2hMFg0zbKJPcLsj1LbZ52atrQZ4
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 22:01:13 -0000

On 05/01/2014 11:40 AM, Thomas Nadeau wrote:
> I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I just don't see why that 
> is going to be useful to anyone. If you were talking about open source 
> and/or reference implementations that the source was available for, 
> then that makes far more sense to me. --Tom 

With some protocols (thinking iCal) the implementors can produce 
incomparable objects. An API can clarify the object model (Oh this is 
how you use it), simplify application development (I do not have to 
spend time making sure I invent an API that will work with all of these 
object permutations and across vendors and vendor objects),

Look at IMAP, almost everyone started with or at least looked at the 
Mark Crispin code from UofW. If your core business model is making code 
that someone else has already defined, good luck making much money. A 
predefined API allows companies to adopt a protocol and stay focused on 
their core business model.

A working group hashed out API would always be a better starting point 
than alone and in a closet code that sucks cash from a company that 
really wants to produce a product.

And I also think that it would be nice if people would create open 
source code that was reviewed by a working group and referenced or 
hosted by the IETF.

VoIP is another example. It would save a lot of time if I knew I could 
use a thought out API, even if I had to implement the code.

Protocol without API == minimum.
API with out code == useful.
API with code == ideal.

-- 

Doug Royer - (K7DMR.us / DougRoyer.com)
DouglasRoyer@gmail.com
714-989-6135