If you go back to the venerable RFC 791 that defines IP you'll find (in Section 3.3) "An Example Upper Level Interface" that includes SEND (src, dst, prot, TOS, TTL, BufPTR, len, Id, DF, opt => result) and RECV (BufPTR, prot, => result, src, dst, TOS, len, opt) I'm not saying that's a great example (even apart from how TOS has evolved) but it shows the idea of what is essentially a language-independent programming interface isn't foreign to the IETF. -- 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.dearlove@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx | 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@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Randy Presuhn Sent: 27 May 2014 18:25 To: ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: inquiry re. the state of protocol R&D ----------------------! 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. -------------------------------------------------------- Hi - >From: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >Sent: May 26, 2014 7:18 PM >To: ietf@xxxxxxxx >Subject: Re: inquiry re. the state of protocol R&D > >I have to vehemently disagree. To me, APIs are a step in the wrong >direction. > >Protocol specs - framed as PDU formats and state machine models - >present a basis for interoperability and distributed operation. APIs >are language-specific, and all too often are tied to a >centralized/client-server model of the world. A big step backwards. It depends on what folks mean by "APIs". My experience in the IETF is that when the term is used here it frequently does *not* mean "language binding", even though that seems to be the term's usual sense outside the IETF. The sense here frequently seems to be something more akin to "service definition" and not tied to a specific language binding, but I haven't seen it rigorously spelled out here. The SNMPv3 work did define internal "ASIs" (abstract service interfaces) helpful in characterizing necessary computations behind protocol behavior, but these don't describe the services provided by the protocol in a way that would be particularly helpful to its users, whether human or software. Randy ******************************************************************** 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. ********************************************************************