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

["Marshall T. Rose" <mrose+mtr.netnews at DBC.MTVIEW.CA.US>]

> As someone who is still coming up to speed on SOAP (would a SOAP server
> be called a dispenser?) I would appreciate the authors and AD responding
> to Mark.  Marshall, can you comment on this point?  Thus far this is the
> only objection that raised my eyebrows.

ok.


> > Speaking for myself only, I agree; I find the timing of this curious,
> > at the very least. The authors of SOAP submitted 1.1 to the W3C
> > specifically to work towards what is now SOAP 1.2, which is rapidly
> > (at least on the time scale of these things) approaching completion.

there's nothing curious about the timing.

the original draft came out a little over three months ago. there was a fair
amount of discussion on both the beep and xmlp working group mailing lists.
the draft was revised a few times based on that.

after a quiet period of a couple of weeks, i asked the ADs to have it
published. unfortunately, that was right before the london ietf, which
introduced a lot of delay. then there was more management coordination.

then the last call came out.


> > Putting a binding based on 1.1 on the IETF Standards track while 1.2
> > is being finalized seems like poor coordination at best.

i guess it depends on what you mean by the term "finalized".

the I-D in question works with 1.1 and 1.2 and, as explained previously,
contains an extensibility mechanism to deal with 1.x and perhaps even 2.y...

/mtr