Re: inquiry re. the state of protocol R&D

Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> Tue, 27 May 2014 02:18 UTC

Return-Path: <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
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 AE5D41A02F5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 May 2014 19:18:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 0KPTw_yhxjXz for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 May 2014 19:18:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server1.neighborhoods.net (server1.neighborhoods.net [207.154.13.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A37A1A02EC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 May 2014 19:18:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4055BCC09E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 May 2014 22:18:30 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.6.2 (20081215) (Debian) at neighborhoods.net
Received: from server1.neighborhoods.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (server1.neighborhoods.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id i84ukZgPPFBM for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 May 2014 22:18:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from new-host-2.home (pool-173-76-155-14.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [173.76.155.14]) by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BC163CC09B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 May 2014 22:18:24 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <5383F5F0.7070800@meetinghouse.net>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 22:18:24 -0400
From: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/29.0 SeaMonkey/2.26
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: inquiry re. the state of protocol R&D
References: <5380C7D3.7080804@meetinghouse.net> <53839B1E.7030003@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <53839B1E.7030003@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/l77WqkWDxHIboMR1MlrOWSelt0U
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: Tue, 27 May 2014 02:18:34 -0000

I have to vehemently disagree.  To me, APIs are a step in the wrong 
direction.

Protocol specs - framed as PDU formats and state machine models - 
present a basis for interoperability and distributed operation. APIs are 
language-specific, and all too often are tied to a 
centralized/client-server model of the world.  A big step backwards.

Miles Fidelman

Carlos M. Martinez wrote:
> A world of APIs is a good thing. As long as the APIs are public and well
> documented and, well, standardized.
>
> I believe this is an evolutionary step. After you get a solid foundation
> of interoperable IP and transport protocols, the next logical step is to
> standardize APIs.
>
> What lies behind the API is bound to be propietary, IMO.
>
> cheers!
>
> ~Carlos
>
> On 5/24/14, 1:24 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>> Hi Folks,
>>
>> For a while, it's been kind of bugging me that the Internet ecosystem is
>> increasingly a world of API's tied to proprietary systems - quite
>> different than the world of interoperable protocols.  Sure, every once
>> in a while something new comes along - like RSS and XMPP, but that's
>> more at the fringes - and in a lot of cases we see attempts at things by
>> folks who really don't have a clue (open social comes to mind). (And, of
>> course, very specific things like, say DMARC.)
>>
>> Obviously, a lot of this is driven by commercial factors - there's money
>> to be made in centralizing systems and monetizing APIs; not so much for
>> protocols.  And it seems like there isn't a lot of R&D funding for such
>> things.
>>
>> Which leads me to wonder - is there much of a protocol r&d community
>> left - academic or otherwise?  IRTF seems awfully narrowly focused - and
>> mostly at lower layers of the protocol stack.  Where's the work on
>> application protocols (beyond refinements to HTTP, and web service
>> stuff)?  Are there still funders for this kind of work?
>>
>> If so, where do folks "congregate?"  For programming languages, there's
>> http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/, conferences like OOPSLA, and there
>> seems to be a steady stream of academic papers.  Is there anything left
>> like that for protocol R&D?
>>
>> Miles Fidelman
>>


-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra