> I think Suresh's point was that SOAP is not a transport or messaging > protocol, but a message format that can be carried over such protocols. > E.g., there are (AFAIK) four transport/messaging bindings for SOAP: > HTTP, SMTP, BEEP, and XMPP.
Yes, that was my point. It's a bit tricky since in RFC 3288, SOAP is mentioned as a XML-based messaging protocol. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Saint-Andre Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 8:27 AM To: Digital Identity Exchange Subject: Re: [dix] draft of proposed charter (#2) John Merrells wrote: > > On 19-Jan-06, at 2:25 PM, Suresh Venkatraman wrote: > >>> Any solution should support multiple transport layers, including, but >>> not limited to: HTTP, SOAP, XMPP, and SIP. >> >> Not to quibble but I don't consider SOAP to be a transport protocol but a >> messaging protocol. OTOH I could see SOAP, as a message envelope >> format, to >> be used within one of the mentioned transport protocols. > > How about... > > "Any solution should support multiple transport and messaging protocols, > including but not limited to: HTTP, SOAP, XMPP, and SIP. " I think Suresh's point was that SOAP is not a transport or messaging protocol, but a message format that can be carried over such protocols. E.g., there are (AFAIK) four transport/messaging bindings for SOAP: HTTP, SMTP, BEEP, and XMPP. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre Jabber Software Foundation http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.shtml _______________________________________________ dix mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dix
