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

Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com> Thu, 01 May 2014 12:13 UTC

Return-Path: <tnadeau@lucidvision.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 960391A08BD; Thu, 1 May 2014 05:13:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.553
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable
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 BYEWMwhEk3K2; Thu, 1 May 2014 05:13:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lucidvision.com (lucidvision.com [72.71.250.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52BEC1A0821; Thu, 1 May 2014 05:13:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.112] (static-72-71-250-38.cncdnh.fast04.myfairpoint.net [72.71.250.38]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C82F278B097; Thu, 1 May 2014 08:12:58 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BB5EB628-0F74-46A3-AF98-A42ABACF7A62"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
Subject: Re: Call for volunteers for C/C++ API liaison manager
From: Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>
In-Reply-To: <53618BDD.1080900@isi.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 08:12:56 -0400
Message-Id: <368E668C-E60A-4D65-B3C6-F3CFCB66EBA7@lucidvision.com>
References: <EB423B81-41F2-480D-B1EE-80E1753E1CDB@iab.org> <53618BDD.1080900@isi.edu>
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/EaWDiwGZXjWfSVe-SmzXt_z7OLM
Cc: IAB <iab@iab.org>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>, IETF Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
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, 01 May 2014 12:13:02 -0000

	APIs are not that useful unless there is code behind them.  Are you proposing code that goes with those APIs?  Also the language that you do this in is important depending on the area of applicability. For instance, if these APIs are related to modern applications, C is all but useless because its not used to build most of those; you need Java/python/etc... for these cases.  

	--Tom


> On 4/30/2014 8:20 AM, IAB Chair wrote:
>> We often see proposals for APIs (most commonly C APIs) discussed in
>> the IETF.
> 
> A protocol "API" isn't language-specific; it describes (or ought to) the upper and lower layer interactions, e.g., as was done in RFC793.
> 
> When we propose an API in the IETF, it should be for that protocol API, not for a language API (which is an instance, specific to a language and also often an OS, of that protocol API).
> 
> (that doesn't preclude the benefit of a liason to a language-standards group, but we shouldn't be seeing IETF proposals for such instances IMO).
> 
> Joe
> 
>