Re: IETF and APIs

Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net> Tue, 29 March 2011 10:07 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A62353A68EC; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 03:07:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lMDvbYOc1keq; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 03:07:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5E523A6836; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 03:07:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [130.129.87.14] (dhcp-570e.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.87.14]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p2TA8xqp020793 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 29 Mar 2011 03:09:11 -0700
Message-ID: <4D91AFB7.3000002@dcrocker.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 12:08:55 +0200
From: Dave CROCKER <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: IETF and APIs
References: <tsl1v1q4a4j.fsf@mit.edu> <4D919E0C.3030604@dcrocker.net> <tslsju62sll.fsf@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <tslsju62sll.fsf@mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Tue, 29 Mar 2011 03:09:12 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: iab@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:07:35 -0000

On 3/29/2011 11:17 AM, Sam Hartman wrote:
> One level is the traditional protocol interoperability we normally
> discuss.
>
> Another level shows up when you want to write a cross-platform
> application.  It's not good enough if Windows has some API. I want to
> have confidence that functionality is available on Windows, OSX, Linux
> and some of the mobile platforms before I depend on that functionality
> in a cross-platform API.
>
> Within the web platform, I want to make sure functionality is available
> on multiple browsers before I depend on it in my cross-browser
> application.

With respect to application-level system design, I think your distinction is 
equivalent to component-testing vs. integrated system testing.  Within the IETF, 
it should be a distinction between lower-level end-to-end and upper-level 
end-to-end.

I certainly agree that upper-level end2end testing is essential.

The Other Dave C's highlighting the possibility of an "abstract" API is also 
worth considering.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net