Subject: Re: Amending RFC 2614

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:08:32 -0700 (PDT)

>James Kempf wrote:
>> [I wrote:]
>> >I submit that a line should be drawn at C and Java language bindings
>> >in the amendments.  A "procedural" language and an "object-oriented"
>> >language are probably enough.  Anyone think otherwise.
>> 
>> I'm not sure I understand. IETF informational RFC's are not binding
>> on anyone. Many vendors can (and do) implement APIs that are not
>> conformant with IETF informational RFC API drafts. So I'm not sure
>> exactly what kind of line you want to draw.
>
>Well, yeah, I know they're not binding on anyone.
>
>But, in exactly how many languages does the IETF need to demonstrate
>how to write an API for SLP?  One is minimally enough.  Two is
>probably more than satisfactory.  Three is unnecessary, in my view. 
>(And if there were to be three languages, I would submit that the
>third should *not* be Perl, because of the way Perl API's are
>typically distributed.  Visual BASIC maybe?)
>
>I'm just trying to head off language advocacy flamage before it
>happens.
>

Sure, I agree. All I'm saying is that I don't know whether/if the IESG
can refuse to publish an informational draft because a working
group asks them. Erik might know more about this. 

		jak