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

[Dave Crocker <dhc2 at dcrocker.net>]

At 01:33 PM 9/10/2001, Allison Mankin wrote:
> Why not use this Last Call discussion
> to bring out the issues of SOAP directly over TCP rather over
> BEEP

Allison,

The most simple and direct answer to your question is that the 
specification that has been put forward is for using BEEP, not TCP.

Would it make sense to discuss IP over PPP when a specification for IP over 
ATM were being put forward?

In addition, having a philosophical discussion about comparative approaches 
is particularly dangerous when there is a detailed specification for one 
approach and nothing but theory for another approach.

What remains really interesting is that all these messages have been posted 
about the last call, without a single criticism of that actual contents of 
the specification.


> (but not over UDP, please - SOAP should not do its own
> reliability)?  A good reason for use of BEEP is to have
> transaction multiplexing.

BEEP's multiplexing feature is, perhaps, the only aspect of it that is 
"interesting" but it is far from the only reason for using the protocol.

Folks need to remember that BEEP serves to regularize a collection of 
services that applications constantly and wastefully re-invent for 
themselves, such as data packaging and security negotiation.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464