On 5/1/2014 10:33 AM, Thomas Nadeau wrote:
On May 1, 2014:12:49 PM, at 12:49 PM, Joe Touch <touch(_at_)isi(_dot_)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(_at_)isi(_dot_)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?
The API is the upper-layer events. Without that, you can't define the
semantics of the interaction with the upper layer.
FWIW, I'm talking about IETF standard API, not Unix-standard or
C-standard. The latter are required to ensure implementation
compatibility, but can't be defined without the former.
Joe