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
- inquiry re. the state of protocol R&D Miles Fidelman
- Re: inquiry re. the state of protocol R&D Carlos M. Martinez
- Re: inquiry re. the state of protocol R&D Miles Fidelman
- Re: inquiry re. the state of protocol R&D Randy Presuhn
- Re: inquiry re. the state of protocol R&D Miles Fidelman
- Re: inquiry re. the state of protocol R&D Scott Brim
- RE: inquiry re. the state of protocol R&D Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: inquiry re. the state of protocol R&D Carlos M. Martinez