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

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Thu, 01 May 2014 03:22 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@isi.edu>
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 3FFED1A083C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 20:22:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651] 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 gnbzN0j58DNj for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 20:22:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from darkstar.isi.edu (darkstar.isi.edu [128.9.128.127]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24C381A0839 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 20:22:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.93] (pool-71-105-87-112.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net [71.105.87.112]) (authenticated bits=0) by darkstar.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s413Lbv8001486 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 30 Apr 2014 20:21:41 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5361BDC2.9020409@isi.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 20:21:38 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>, 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> <5361B341.4000200@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5361B341.4000200@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/M5SBQt3EglQ-ucqFV-HcOSDltOg
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 03:22:06 -0000

On 4/30/2014 7:36 PM, 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.

+1

However, somewhere along the line, AFAICT the IETF started thinking of 
protocol APIs as language implementations, and decided (rightly) that 
the latter was out of scope, and threw the baby out with the bathwater.

IMO, a protocol is *incomplete* without its protocol 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.

It is, if you can find someone who knows both and can attend both ;-)

Joe