Subject: Re: Amending RFC 2614

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:46:13 -0700 (PDT)

>And on a related note: unless something unexpected happens, I suspect
>Enron will let me publish the code and documentation I've written
>which adds Perl to the list of languages for which there is an API to
>write applications of SLP.  However, the Perl community can and does
>herd its own camels.
>

Great!

>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.

		jak

---

From: james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:51:16 -0700

James Kempf wrote:
> [I wrote:]
> >language are probably enough.  Anyone think otherwise.
> 

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.

-- 
j h woodyatt <[email-masked]>  | "Never look at the trombones.
coder, foundation software        | You'll only encourage them."
enron broadband switching systems |     -Robert Strauss, on conducting