![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 ned.freed at mrochek.com wrote: > > ... 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. > > In general this cannot be right, since it would make all problems the > responsibility of whoever is responsible for a given application and eliminate > the IETF entirely. ...which is reasonable. Consider the alternative, where foo-over-blah is the blah group's problem, and the guys thinking about the physical layer get hamstrung with responsibility for absolutely everything. > Example: HTTP began as HTML over TCP, so it is the W3C's > problemn. Repeat with TCP, IP, whatever. > > Problems need to be solved by the people with the competence and interest to do > so. And in this case the W3C has said they have neither. odd. they've got all the SOAP people, after all. > > > 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. > > That's exactly the logic that has led to bad protocol designs so many > times in the past. There are bad protocol designs and there are good protocol designs. Many are produced using similar methodologies; it's hardly the only defining factor. care to give specific examples? L. <L.Wood at surrey.ac.uk>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.