Re: Java Bindings do not need to be removed was Re: Proposed PRF changes to address Ken's comments

[Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf at mit.edu>]

>>>>> "Mayank" == Mayank Upadhyay <mayank+ietf-kitten at google.com> writes:

    Mayank> I agree with Sam's comments. It would be in JGSS's best
    Mayank> interest if the bindings are defined at the IETF simply
    Mayank> because the it would provide the widest review with
    Mayank> experts in this area.

    Mayank> Having an abstract API at the org.ietf level and an
    Mayank> implementation at java.* level would just confuse
    Mayank> developers. 

Er, that's not quite what I meant.  By abstract API I mean the
language-independent API. 

I.E. with the current administritive structures the IETF can either do
the standardization work or Sun can do the work.  The option of IETF
doing the work and having it reviewed after the fact in Sun's process
is not OK.  Joint work might be a possibility.


_______________________________________________
Kitten mailing list
Kitten at lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten