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
