On Tue Mar 29 16:53:03 2011, Scott Brim wrote:
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 14:14, Dave Cridland <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> On Tue Mar 29 12:28:55 2011, Eric Burger wrote:
>>
>> Would we not be better off just asking (mandating?) at least one
open
>> source implementation? That effort would produce a de facto API.
>
> Unfortunately this doesn't work in practise.
>
> One of the examples that Sam raised originally concerned TLS, and
that has
> (at least) three different open-source implementations in library
form, all
> with fairly different APIs.
"API" has too many meanings. In this case there is the "API"
between
app and library, and "API" in the sense of a client/server protocol
on
the net. I've learned a few new meanings of API e.g. from cloud
people.
Well, for the avoidance of doubt, I took Sam's comment as being
exclusively about the traditional meaning of API, that is, the
interface between app and library. In the (inaccurate and annoying)
protocol sense, the IETF is obviously well-placed to define standard
protocols.
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx - xmpp:dwd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf