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.
Mark, my condolences to Akamai on your loss of Danny. He was a really
cool guy.
Eliot
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Nottingham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: cisco.external.ietf
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: Last Call: Using SOAP in BEEP to Proposed Standard
>
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 08:33:01PM -0700, Larry Masinter wrote:
> >
> > I don't question the venue of IETF specifying the binding of SOAP
> > over transfer protocols, but I wonder about the timing.
> >
> > 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Putting a binding based on 1.1 on the IETF Standards track while 1.2
> is being finalized seems like poor coordination at best.
>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist
> Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA USA)
>
