Re: Procedural question (Re: SIP API spec)

Frank T Solensky <solensky@andr.ub.com> Wed, 27 January 1993 17:16 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07406; 27 Jan 93 12:16 EST
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07402; 27 Jan 93 12:16 EST
Received: from Sun.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17302; 27 Jan 93 12:18 EST
Received: from Eng.Sun.COM (engmail1-bb.Corp.Sun.COM) by Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA25429; Wed, 27 Jan 93 09:17:03 PST
Received: from sunroof.Eng.Sun.COM by Eng.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA01850; Wed, 27 Jan 93 09:18:24 PST
Received: from Eng.Sun.COM (engmail1) by sunroof.Eng.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA20421; Wed, 27 Jan 93 09:15:31 PST
Received: from Sun.COM (sun-barr) by Eng.Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA01701; Wed, 27 Jan 93 09:16:53 PST
Received: from ub-gate.UB.com by Sun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA21652; Wed, 27 Jan 93 08:50:39 PST
Received: from sunny.andr.UB.com (sunny.andr.UB.com) by ub-gate.UB.com (4.1/SMI-4.1[UB-1.8]) id AA13705; Wed, 27 Jan 93 08:50:33 PST
Received: from fenway.andr.UB.com by sunny.andr.UB.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA18030; Wed, 27 Jan 93 11:50:46 EST
Received: by fenway.andr.UB.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA07825; Wed, 27 Jan 93 11:50:32 EST
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 11:50:32 EST
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Frank T Solensky <solensky@andr.ub.com>
Message-Id: <9301271650.AA07825@fenway.andr.UB.com>
To: kasten@ftp.com
Subject: Re: Procedural question (Re: SIP API spec)
Cc: Bob.Gilligan@eng.sun.com, ip-encaps@sunroof.eng.sun.com, sip@caldera.usc.edu
Content-Length: 0

>Frank,
>
>Making any interface specification a part of the standard, either a
>generic one as you suggest, or a specific one as was recently posted
>to the SIP list, is a very very bad idea. At least as far as the IETF
>goes.

The intent of the document is more along the lines of an informational RFC
rather than selecting or specifying a standard API:  it'll reinforce the
notion that API will be affected, regardless of which one becomes IPv7.

>The SIP API spec was written as a BSD-Socket interface. What about
>those environments that use Streams?

Good point -- this should be added.  Anyone know of any other common APIs
other than these two?

>What about environments that use
>their own interfaces -- where neither Sockets nor Streams are available?
>

The RFC would also emphasize the underlying concepts so that the reader
can see the reasoning behind each delta and extrapolate it into their own
API.
							-- Frank