For example to see what the thinking is, look at any of the working papers from
the Networking Subgroup
on http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2013/
or http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2014/
(Looking myself, they've not got far.)
--
Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194 | Fax: +44 1245 242124
chris(_dot_)dearlove(_at_)baesystems(_dot_)com | http://www.baesystems.com
BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre,
Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Dearlove,
Christopher (UK)
Sent: 01 May 2014 17:19
To: Joe Touch; IAB; IETF Announce
Cc: IETF
Subject: RE: Call for volunteers for C/C++ API liaison manager
----------------------! WARNING ! ---------------------- This message
originates from outside our organisation, either from an external partner or
from the internet.
Consider carefully whether you should click on any links, open any attachments
or reply.
Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters for instructions on
reporting suspicious email messages.
--------------------------------------------------------
I think this is missing the point. This is not about "When we propose an API in
the IETF" because that's not the proposal.
From what I've seen (I track them to some extent) of how ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22 are
progressing (having finished C++14, a tidy-up of C++11) _they_ want to create
a C++ interface to these things. (Which is, I would guess, likely to be at
least in part object-based, not simply function calls.) That would be because
people writing C++ programs want to do things that need them, and they would
like a standardised way of doing it.
They have then requested input from domain experts (i.e. the IETF) on this.
(ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22 are C++ language experts.) This would end up in an ISO
standard (I think probably a Technical Report, not the main C++ standard). If
the IETF wanted to it could then reference that (or whatever else is allowed)
in an RFC, but that's not ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22's business.
So the question here is whether (and if so how) to assist ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22 or
not.
--
Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group Communications, Networks and
Image Analysis Capability BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre West
Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194 | Fax: +44 1245 242124
chris(_dot_)dearlove(_at_)baesystems(_dot_)com | http://www.baesystems.com
BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre,
Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Joe Touch
Sent: 01 May 2014 00:49
To: IAB; IETF Announce
Cc: IETF
Subject: Re: Call for volunteers for C/C++ API liaison manager
----------------------! WARNING ! ---------------------- This message
originates from outside our organisation, either from an external partner or
from the internet.
Consider carefully whether you should click on any links, open any attachments
or reply.
Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters for instructions on
reporting suspicious email messages.
--------------------------------------------------------
On 4/30/2014 8:20 AM, IAB Chair wrote:
We often see proposals for APIs (most commonly C APIs) discussed in
the IETF.
A protocol "API" isn't language-specific; it describes (or ought to) the upper
and lower layer interactions, e.g., as was done in RFC793.
When we propose an API in the IETF, it should be for that protocol API, not for
a language API (which is an instance, specific to a language and also often an
OS, of that protocol API).
(that doesn't preclude the benefit of a liason to a language-standards group,
but we shouldn't be seeing IETF proposals for such instances IMO).
Joe
********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and
may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it
from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its
contents to any other person.
********************************************************************