On 8/13/2012 7:14 AM, philip(_dot_)eardley(_at_)bt(_dot_)com wrote:
Ben,
Thanks for your review.
The right status isn't clear-cut (I think), but when we (Chairs & Wes)
discussed it, Info seemed best
* mainly because precedent seems to be that API docs are informational, for
example socket API extensions for SCTP http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6458/
This has been a big mistake in the past, IMO.
A key part of the definition of any protocol is its API. It is exactly
as important as the "on the wire" component and the endpoint state and
semantics of message exchanges.
See RFC793 for a great example. What we know as sockets there is
basically a direct implementation of the *specified* API for TCP.
I can't argue that this document is a reason for the IETF to correct its
past mistake, but the sooner it does the better. APIs ought to be a
*mandatory* part of any protocol specification. As such, they should be
at the same level as any other part of that spec (e.g.., standards track
or experimental).
Joe