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

David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com> Thu, 01 May 2014 03:16 UTC

Return-Path: <dwm@xpasc.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 93BAC1A083C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 20:16:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.546
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.546 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 ZgPn_o31uas8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 20:16:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from c2w3p-2.abacamail.com (c2w3p-2.abacamail.com [67.231.154.153]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01D251A0839 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 20:16:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xpasc.com (h-68-164-244-186.snva.ca.megapath.net [68.164.244.186]) by c2w3p-2.abacamail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FB903FAA0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 May 2014 03:15:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from egate.xpasc.com (egate.xpasc.com [10.1.2.49]) by xpasc.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s413GiNY000392 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 20:16:44 -0700
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 20:16:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Call for volunteers for C/C++ API liaison manager
In-Reply-To: <5361B341.4000200@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.01.1404302013540.8611@egate.xpasc.com>
References: <EB423B81-41F2-480D-B1EE-80E1753E1CDB@iab.org> <53618BDD.1080900@isi.edu> <5361B341.4000200@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.01 (LRH 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/KHNacLRCpkm_iFxKxDj6PswtRsg
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
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 03:16:48 -0000

And the language standards bodies don't define many of the
APIs AFAICT ... the defined to a major degree by the groups
implementing the network libraries. If OpenSSL and someone else
implement an SSL API, it would be really good for it to be the
same C/C++ etc. API.

On Wed, 30 Apr 2014, Melinda Shore wrote:

> On 4/30/14 3:48 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
> > (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).
>
> Probably not, but it seems pretty clear that deployment
> of some IETF protocols has suffered from either the lack
> of a comprehensive API, or crappy API.  I'm thinking of
> IPSec, newer DNS features, etc.  I think it's very much
> in the interest of the IETF to have someone around who
> can talk to some of the language standards bodies about
> how to expose protocol features, how to deal with options,
> etc.
>
> Melinda
>