Re: The internet architecture

From: John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net>
To: Thomas Narten <narten at us.ibm.com>, Keith Moore <moore at network-heretics.com>
Cc: tae at ietf.org, ietf at ietf.org, Bryan Ford <brynosaurus at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 10:23:00 -0500
In-reply-to: <200812051425.mB5EPKEG032766 at cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
References: <C15AE32B-E564-4C93-86FF-40EF203E673A at mpi-sws.org> <49382030.5020704 at network-heretics.com> <200812051425.mB5EPKEG032766 at cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>


Wouldn't it have been nice if the de facto APIs in use today were more
along the lines of ConnectTo(DNS name, service/port).

That had been the original plan and there were APIs that did that.But for some reason, the lunacy of the protocol specific socketsinterface was preferred. I know people who have been complainingabout it for 25 years or thereabouts.

Some knew even then that the purpose of an API was to hide thosesorts of dependencies. There seems to be a history here of alwayspicking the bad design.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Follow-Ups:
- Re: The internet architecture
  - From: Keith Moore

References:
- Re: The internet architecture
  - From: Bryan Ford
- Re: The internet architecture
  - From: Keith Moore
- Re: The internet architecture
  - From: Thomas Narten

Prev by Date: sockets vs. fds
Next by Date: Re: sockets vs. fds
Previous by thread: RE: The internet architecture
Next by thread: Re: The internet architecture
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re: The internet architecture

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.