Hi! On 26/05/2014 23:18, Miles Fidelman wrote: > I have to vehemently disagree. To me, APIs are a step in the wrong > direction. We agree to disagree then :-) I am not saying they should represent the *only* way of doing things, but definitely I don't believe it's a wrong step or a bad thing. > > 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. APIs do not need to be language specific. There are plenty of examples of language agnostic APIs, and actually there are WGs in the IETF specifying some. Regarding the client/server model, well, your argument applies to HTTP too i guess. I don't like client/server very much myself, but it's not disappearing anytime soon. I don't see why APIs should necessarily be tied to the client / server either model. That we haven't yet designed one that is not doesn't mean that this is necessarily the case. > > Miles Fidelman > > Carlos M. Martinez wrote: >> A world of APIs is a good thing. As long as the APIs are public and well >> documented and, well, standardized. >> >> I believe this is an evolutionary step. After you get a solid foundation >> of interoperable IP and transport protocols, the next logical step is to >> standardize APIs. >> >> What lies behind the API is bound to be propietary, IMO. >> >> cheers! >> >> ~Carlos >> >> On 5/24/14, 1:24 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: >>> Hi Folks, >>> >>> For a while, it's been kind of bugging me that the Internet ecosystem is >>> increasingly a world of API's tied to proprietary systems - quite >>> different than the world of interoperable protocols. Sure, every once >>> in a while something new comes along - like RSS and XMPP, but that's >>> more at the fringes - and in a lot of cases we see attempts at things by >>> folks who really don't have a clue (open social comes to mind). (And, of >>> course, very specific things like, say DMARC.) >>> >>> Obviously, a lot of this is driven by commercial factors - there's money >>> to be made in centralizing systems and monetizing APIs; not so much for >>> protocols. And it seems like there isn't a lot of R&D funding for such >>> things. >>> >>> Which leads me to wonder - is there much of a protocol r&d community >>> left - academic or otherwise? IRTF seems awfully narrowly focused - and >>> mostly at lower layers of the protocol stack. Where's the work on >>> application protocols (beyond refinements to HTTP, and web service >>> stuff)? Are there still funders for this kind of work? >>> >>> If so, where do folks "congregate?" For programming languages, there's >>> http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/, conferences like OOPSLA, and there >>> seems to be a steady stream of academic papers. Is there anything left >>> like that for protocol R&D? >>> >>> Miles Fidelman >>> > >