On May 1, 2014:12:49 PM, at 12:49 PM, Joe Touch <touch@xxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxx> 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? --Tom
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail