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 08:53 AM 9/10/2001, Lloyd Wood wrote:
> >I can't see feature negotiation working well in implementations; it's
> >nice in theory, but often problematic in practice. The feature
> 
> Then you should discuss such concerns about SOAP in a SOAP protocol 
> development forum.  This thread does not concern general SOAP issues.

Then there is another reason why SOAP over BEEP is W3C work, as I've
been claiming and you've been denying.

If you've read Eamon's draft, you will know that the feature
negotiation that takes place in this draft is done in the context of a
BEEP exchange during profile initialisation; in my previous message I
go on to suggest that that BEEP exchange of supported features may not
be necessary, and could be left entirely up to SOAP in the interests
of a far simpler, more opaque transport.

(defining feature negotiation separately for everything carrying SOAP
 strikes me as a rathole.)

> One more time:
> 
>          Are there any technical problems with
>          the specification that is under review?

I believe so. Which is why I took the trouble to write.

> d/
> 
> ps.  the time for challenging the venue for this work was when it was 
> initiated, not now.

It's an _individual draft_.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-etal-beep-soap-04.txt

We don't have First Calls, charters or bofs to discuss whether
individual drafts should or should not be written. Challenging
individual drafts when the work for them is initiated strikes me as 
both impossible and absurd.

L.

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