![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
> Reference [1] in draft-etal-beep-soap-04.txt is written > > [1] World Wide Web Consortium, "Simple Object Access Protocol > (SOAP) 1.1", May 2000, <http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-SOAP- > 20000508>. > > However, http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-SOAP-20000508 is not > a W3C publication; it is a submission by its authors, and has > not much more standing in the W3C than an Internet Draft has > in the IETF. At a minimum, the attribution of the reference should > be fixed. The authors are Box, Ehnebuske, Kakivaya et al. ok. it's easy enough to fix this. > Perhaps the IETF document could specify how to BEEP as a transfer > protocol for *any* SOAP-like protocol, but it's hard to imagine > it being specific enough to warrant "Proposed Standard". > > To make progress, the IESG could publish "Using SOAP in BEEP" as > Experimental, and move it to standards track once there's an > appropriate reference for SOAP. the document in question is 16 months old and forms the basis for many implementations, products, services, and so on. i think that those implementors would be somewhat confused by your view that "it's hard to imagine it being specific enough". in theory, i might agree with you; however, the practice is far different from the theoretical perspective you suggest... /mtr
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.