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

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> Thu, 01 May 2014 16:50 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 3B7C91A6FB9; Thu, 1 May 2014 09:50:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.851
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.851 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 V_tZXjurmywa; Thu, 1 May 2014 09:50:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from boreas.isi.edu (boreas.isi.edu [128.9.160.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C0371A6FCF; Thu, 1 May 2014 09:50:46 -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 boreas.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s41GnKhJ025538 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 1 May 2014 09:49:29 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <53627B10.1080906@isi.edu>
Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 09:49:20 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>
Subject: Re: Call for volunteers for C/C++ API liaison manager
References: <EB423B81-41F2-480D-B1EE-80E1753E1CDB@iab.org> <53618BDD.1080900@isi.edu> <368E668C-E60A-4D65-B3C6-F3CFCB66EBA7@lucidvision.com> <536261F0.1070004@isi.edu> <F12396FD-1035-4530-948C-FBD02DF741D6@lucidvision.com>
In-Reply-To: <F12396FD-1035-4530-948C-FBD02DF741D6@lucidvision.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/PbAENMA0NDizuFrbYzyM5h6bt_Q
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 16:50:50 -0000

On 5/1/2014 8:26 AM, Thomas Nadeau wrote:
>
> On May 1, 2014:11:02 AM, at 11:02 AM, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 5/1/2014 5:12 AM, Thomas Nadeau wrote:
>>>
>>> 	APIs are not that useful unless there is code behind them.
>>
>> Ultimately, yes. But the code represents an instance of the API.
>
> That depends on your perspective. These days the code IS the API, in
> particular open source code. Standards bodies do not need to define the
> APIs; implementation communities do that already. The IETF should
> probably stick to on-the-wire protocols.

A protocol is defined by:

	- internal state
	- message "on the wire" formats
	- upper layer events
	- lower layer events (message arrivals/departures)
	- time events

Leave any of the 6 above out and you have an incomplete spec.

The "on the wire" part is only a fraction of what's needed. If you don't 
believe that, then write a TCP implementation from the header format 
alone, and let's see how well it works.

Joe