Re: [mif] Adoption of API document as the MIF WG document

[Simon Perreault <[e-mail]>]

On 2011-12-16 15:50, Ted Lemon wrote:
> This is the same point you raised at the meeting in QC, and it's wrong for the
> same reason: this API is not intended to be used by applications. It is intended
> to describe all of the functionality that's required to implement a high-level
> API, which would then be used by applications.

Why not just specify the high-level API right away? Why is this intermediate step 
necessary? As you say, all the underlying functionality is already available on 
the various platforms out there.

I have the feeling that this will be the last step, and that no high-level API 
will be defined.

My point is that this document does not completely fulfill the API milestone 
because it is too low-level. The important part, the one that would have real 
potential to fix the mess we're in, is the high-level API.

Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca