Re: bettering open source involvement

Alia Atlas <> Fri, 29 July 2016 14:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CAEB12D5F0 for <>; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 07:14:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.699 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NFlDOzbqCi30 for <>; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 07:14:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1E4812D1B7 for <>; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 07:14:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id s63so91836994qkb.2 for <>; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 07:14:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=x3o1raNhIzYxoUMA5RszDVvDMLoVlQjzjNylXQvRpqE=; b=slOIu/eY+YRPCG3trsk1Yl7AjdWglrJANX7U0QT9TTJtDybqaE8nc4cuCEeF+nARt5 CMW36SnsAKXpxfGMA8aRdle5W0oNXqc8QtT95T338MzwhtS3m2OcADLr+ayefB+2+71u dn1s0l/PJzUhC4Csx3S3Df+xovExWLUdm7dtOtpchv4MyQK6qBcqW1IgOoRZzLn1qdsz QmM9vj1U++holOcSaT7lqp7GggMAveVPYlnfnp1bdShxnTLlzNaXmsfabF7ew3qtZDin q5EZlL7GTtgkaAPybNMLW59aw22/xXo/XU4CB+4K+jZ+i2iWroTszh50tr5nBccShoG7 8rfQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=x3o1raNhIzYxoUMA5RszDVvDMLoVlQjzjNylXQvRpqE=; b=LEgEY9eroJbTZEKP6Z/Snppouv+MqUw7Wkd4hmWgwMfm7IE9DLArRj098qHcac5mQY vseKLK3uOGNRUbbwYkVRjKDKbCcsjtd0xqD+rj/mcufmXWORLofm43UnmAsKtrzyM7N/ WAMhqdKV/cQBsKb+JrX8Iw2j2eemt0nvvZLzwwtDLtrX/g16l7K7EEqLDW/h9Hgx1VKs ELL7ucSENYPvI52LE5/hPT1YbUJezJFgMVv+QxiGaV+x9ogMAfafa0PEeQzQeeRZ1Pib eCq0px4mh/mVgt0scQHZxU7psGgros3UfuMvHpcP6VMHRkjt3j2YKHeeuHpq3rnB+Npg HArw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkooutemH9YRqSR5iH2kSc1uEUfr+ydFtAdX0url2819wCGAb/qlKwTWNb9PBO1QGz7nIWttHZkvTX4Fe0xMA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id z192mr51608426qka.182.1469801641240; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 07:14:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 07:14:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Alia Atlas <>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 10:14:00 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: bettering open source involvement
To: Melinda Shore <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114a8498b776730538c6dc01
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF discussion list <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 14:14:04 -0000

Hi Melinda,

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 10:31 PM, Melinda Shore <>

> On 7/28/16 1:06 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> And there's our problem, right there. Protocols without APIs are
>> pretty much useless these days. IPv6 without a socket API would have
>> been an abject failure. Without RFC 2133, RFC 2292 and their successors,
>> who knows how the POSIX and Winsock support for IPv6 would have turned
>> out?
> Not specifying APIs in the IETF clearly doesn't mean that
> there are no APIs, clearly.
> I'm certainly open to the possibility that we start tackling APIs
> but I'm not sure it's a terrific idea.  For one thing, we already
> have too much work.  For another, I'm not sure we'd produce
> particularly good APIs. It's a different skill from developing and
> specifying network protocols.  And thirdly, I'm not convinced that the
> people implementing our protocols would want IETF-developed APIs.

I'd like to pick up on just one point here.  Why do you think that we
have too much work?  If there is a need for the work to be done, then
additional people also come to engage and do the work.  If our basic
can't scale to higher workloads - as far as post WG review and such, then we
need to improve them - not turn away necessary work.

This is orthogonal to the API question, of course.


> This is completely subjective but my own sense is that the
> #1 problem we have related to open source projects we take years
> to produce specifications.
> Melinda