IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com> Thu, 01 May 2014 17:33 UTC

Return-Path: <tnadeau@lucidvision.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 A85D91A6FCF; Thu, 1 May 2014 10:33:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.553
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable
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 nWULvkuJma6m; Thu, 1 May 2014 10:33:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lucidvision.com (lucidvision.com [72.71.250.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EF2C1A6FB0; Thu, 1 May 2014 10:33:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.112] (static-72-71-250-38.cncdnh.fast04.myfairpoint.net [72.71.250.38]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16E9F278BD8C; Thu, 1 May 2014 13:33:15 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9DA4E0B6-0F28-4A0D-9D65-3C957A50A868"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
Subject: Re: Call for volunteers for C/C++ API liaison manager
From: Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>
In-Reply-To: <53627B10.1080906@isi.edu>
Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 13:33:13 -0400
Message-Id: <C1014F9B-B387-4251-8E65-99DDB560BB16@lucidvision.com>
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> <53627B10.1080906@isi.edu>
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/stzZcVfPUN6wysmiRI4wGa8A-nQ
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 17:33:18 -0000

On May 1, 2014:12:49 PM, at 12:49 PM, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:

> 
> 
> 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.

	Why do any of those things need a standards-based API to program to?

	--Tom

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email