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

["Christian Huitema" <huitema at windows.microsoft.com>]

> > > christian - i'd like to understand any technical concerns you
> might
> > > have on the "soap over beep" specification.
> >
> > Well, I am mostly concerned to see "SOAP over BEEP" defined before
> we
> > define the alternative "SOAP over TCP". I mean, if we are
> transporting
> > opaque blobs of data between two points, TCP looks like a no-
> brainer...
> 
> There are other "SOAP over foo" proposals in the wings too. I do agree
> that
> the general question needs looking at. Maybe it's OK to have lots of
> SOAP mappings, or maybe it isn't. Although mtr may disagree, imho this
> does
> need to be considered before deciding to publish a Proposed Standard.

In particular, SOAP is evolving, and there are generic SOAP extensions
being defined to deal with end to end security, end to end confirmations
and the like, where end-to-end is defined as "from the SOAP initiator to
the final SOAP actor". It may be argued that these functions duplicate
BEEP; in any case, the availability of such extensions within the XML
protocol itself implies that mapping over TCP is, in fact, trivial; we
need only a delimitation function, i.e. about the level of complexity of
RFC-1006. Defining SOAP-over-FOO before SOAP itself is finalized can
only be an experiment.

-- Christian Huitema