Re: Call for volunteers for C/C++ API liaison manager

On May 1, 2014:1:38 PM, at 1:38 PM, Joe Touch <touch(_at_)isi(_dot_)edu> wrote:

> 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.
        I guess we will have to agree to disagree.  I just don't see why that 
is going to be useful to anyone.  If you were talking about open source and/or 
reference implementations that the source was available for, then that makes 
far more sense to me.

        --Tom

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail