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

[Mayank Upadhyay <mayank+ietf-kitten at google.com>]

Sam Hartman wrote:

>    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. 
>
>  
My apologies. My view is tainted by an old contentious discussion in the 
CAT working group about an interfaces-only JGSS API. :)

-Mayank

> 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