Subject: [AAA-WG]: JSR for Diameter Java API?

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 08:53:58 -0700 (PDT)

Hi folks,

In the hopes that everybody is not so exhausted by the effort to finish up
the protocol that they will ignore this :-), I'd like to bring up a proposal
for the API.

The proposal is to separate out the Java API and run it through the
Java Community Process as a JSR in addition to or instead of 
doing it as part of the Informational RFC. In general, the IETF
does not standardize APIs as everyone probably already knows. An
Informational RFC does not have the same weight as a Standards Track
RFC. The Java Community Process is designed to standardize Java APIs.
An API that has gone through the JSR process and received approval
has the same weight in the Java community as a Standards Track
RFC does within the IETF.

What is involved is the following:

- Identify someone willing to act as a specification leader. The spec
leader is responsible for writing the JSR and shepharding it
through the process, and for seeing that the reference implementation
and test suite are made available.

- Identify  a group of experts willing to review the specification.
The experts must represent a wide group of interested parties in the
industry. Having most or all of them from one company is not acceptable.

- Identify someone willing to produce a reference implementation
and test suite. I'm not entirely sure of the details on the
license, but I believe it must be close or equivalent to open source, if not 
Open Source (capital O, capital S).

As a point of reference, the Service Location Working Group chose, primarily
through lack of interest, not to pursue this path two years ago, and
now continued work outside the working group has resulted in considerable
interest and a JSR has been developed.

Is there any interest in pursuing a JSR for the Diameter API at this time? Note:
if you reply affirmatively, please also indicate your level of interest and
committment to playing one of the roles in the process mentioned above.

		jak

---

From: Cain Brian-BCAIN1 <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 11:13:37 -0500

> committment to playing one of the roles in the process 

I'm definitely interested in pursuing this idea.  I'm willing to serve as any/all roles mentioned.  I haven't yet discussed it with any supervisors, but I would hope to be able to provide my implementation as a possible reference implementation.

-Brian