Re: Last Call: Using SOAP in BEEP to Proposed Standard

[Lloyd Wood <l.wood at eim.surrey.ac.uk>]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 05:42 AM 9/10/2001, Lloyd Wood wrote:
> >As reference (1) indicates, SOAP is documented in the W3C. Why is this
> >work being done as an IETF draft and not in the W3C? BEEP is RFC3080,
> >but SOAP in BEEP is a SOAP-specific problem, which afaik means it's a
> >W3C problem.
> 
> Ethernet is not an IETF specification, yet the IETF has an IP-over-Ethernet 
> standard.

... because the IETF did IP and has the interest in IP.

In SOAP over BEEP, W3C did SOAP and has the interest in SOAP, so that
would make SOAP-over-BEEP the W3C's problem.

In general, I think that foo-over-blah is the foo group's problem.


> The simple fact is that "convergence" layer protocols, that allow one 
> protocol to work on top of another, are separate specification efforts from 
> either of the protocols being converged.  It is not automatically better to 
> have the "top" or the "bottom" layer originating standards group do the 
> convergence protocol.

Meeting the needs of the top layer is imo best understood by the
top-layer group, which works within the framework already established
by the bottom-layer group. That way you may well end up with something
sucky, but at least it should be adequate to the needs of the top
layer.


> My own view is that the IETF has very strong skills at doing protocols and 
> the W3C is strong at doing formats (content).  That suggests doing the 
> convergence protocol in the IETF.

I would say that everything is a protocol, to be parsed and processed.

L.

> In any event, the specification has been written.  Are there any TECHNICAL 
> problems with it?
> 
> d/
> 
> 
> ----------
> Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
> Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
> tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464

<L.Wood at surrey.ac.uk>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>