Subject: inquiry re. the state of protocol R&D

From: Miles Fidelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 12:24:51 -0400

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

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra

---

From: "Carlos M. Martinez" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 16:50:54 -0300

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

---

From: Miles Fidelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 22:18:24 -0400

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.

Miles Fidelman

---

From: "Carlos M. Martinez" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 18:06:00 -0300

Hi!

> I have to vehemently disagree.  To me, APIs are a step in the wrong

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.

> 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.