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

[Allison Mankin <mankin at isi.edu>]

Dave,

> 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. 
>  

You mistake my intent in the question - I think this discussion
is serving to increase community awareness of the valuable 
functions of BEEP, the whole range of them, of which I mentioned
only one, multiplexing.  There was a lot of review of BEEP by IESG
as it went to Proposed Standard, and I share Ned's view that it is
a very useful protocol/application structure.  So my comment was
not intended to support a naked TCP mapping of SOAP.

TCP (or SCTP) fulfils critical reliability and congestion control 
functions under BEEP, hence my statement against a UDP mapping.

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

Purely with respect to the architecture discussion, yes -
there should be commonalities and consistency of the big
picture.  But any more about IP over foo would be digressive.

Allison